Oral Answers to Questions

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Parthenon Sculptures

Andrew Dismore: What assessment she has made of the likely effect on London's Olympic bid of the UK's not returning the Parthenon sculptures to Greece in time for the 2004 Athens Olympics.

Tessa Jowell: I know that the House will want to welcome my new ministerial colleague, the Minister for the Arts, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Estelle Morris), and the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) has directed his energy to an increased portfolio, taking on tourism as well.

Malcolm Moss: And licensing.

Tessa Jowell: And licensing. How could I forget? [Interruption.] Freudian. With reference to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), I have made no such assessment.

Andrew Dismore: Bearing in mind the fact that the new Acropolis museum is under construction, with a completion date in 2004, is it not about time, after 200 years, that the Parthenon sculptures were returned to their rightful home, to put the icing on the cake for the Athens Olympics in 2004? Would it not create a great deal of good will towards our own Olympic bid if we were seen to be supporting the Athens Olympic games in such a generous way?

Tessa Jowell: I know that my hon. Friend has been a long-term advocate of the position set out in his question. However, it is important that we keep quite separate the issue of the Parthenon marbles and the issue of the lobbying, in due course, in support of bringing the Olympics to London in 2012. The two issues are unconnected. As my hon. Friend knows, the responsibility in law for the Parthenon marbles lies with the British Museum and the British Museum trustees.

Boris Johnson: Is the Secretary of State worried that Britain's position as the custodian of the Parthenon marbles may be undermined by the surprising remark from the Secretary of State for Education and Skills that he would not mind if there was a falling away in the study of ancient Greek and other languages? Was that not a philistine and a surprising thing to say?

Tessa Jowell: I have plenty else to worry about and do not need to add that to my list.

Edward O'Hara: Does my right hon. Friend agree not only that it would be an enormous act of vision, generosity and cultural co-operation to return the Parthenon marbles to Athens for the Olympics in 2004, but that if those millions of visitors go to Athens in 2004 and see an accusing empty gallery where the Parthenon sculptures should be, great opprobrium will be earned by the British Government if they have not made some move before then to return the marbles to Athens?

Tessa Jowell: The museum, although planned, is not yet built, and although the site has been cleared, the foundation stone has not yet been laid. My hon. Friend is aware that the chairman of the trustees of the British Museum and the director of the British Museum have had discussions with their Greek counterparts about this matter. The position in law remains clear: the custodianship of the 30 per cent. or so of the marbles that are in the British Museum sits with the trustees of the British Museum, and they have no intention of returning them to Greece on a permanent basis or on loan.

Angus Robertson: As the Member of Parliament whose main constituency county town is, sadly, associated with the misappropriated Parthenon marbles—Elgin is the town to which I refer—may I impress on the Minister the need to return those artefacts? Is she not aware of the statement by the Greek Minister of Culture, Mr. Evangelos Venizelos, that ownership of the marbles is no longer the key issue, and that he proposes that the marbles be returned to Athens on loan? Is it not now the right time to do the right thing and return the Parthenon marbles to Greece?

Tessa Jowell: I, too, have had discussions with the Greek Culture Minister. The hon. Gentleman must accept what I have already said: this is not a matter for Government. The statutory responsibility for the marbles resides with the British Museum and the trustees of the British Museum. They have made the position clear.

Derek Wyatt: Given that the Tate now has four different museums and the Imperial War Museum has three, the globalisation of museums and art galleries already exists. Why could we not have a British Museum in Athens that would hold some of the sculptures, to resolve the tensions between us?

Tessa Jowell: As my hon. Friend knows, that proposition has already been put on the table and in due course will no doubt be considered. He will also know that the British Museum is proposing an investment of about £2 million in what it describes as a virtual display of the Parthenon marbles, ensuring that wherever fragments are located in the world, they are available to see. The British Museum sees its position in international culture in a particular way; as the global museum offering free access to visitors not only from the United Kingdom, but from around the world. That is an important element of its conclusion that the Parthenon marbles, legally acquired, should remain there.

Licensing Bill

Richard Younger-Ross: What recent (a) representations and (b) discussions she has had on the Licensing Bill.

Richard Caborn: I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) back to his place. My ministerial colleagues probably wish that he had had a longer period of recovery, but it is good to see him back.
	My ministerial colleagues and I have received many representations recently from right hon. and hon. Members, organisations and members of the public about various aspects of the Bill. We have also had numerous meetings with a whole range of organisations with an interest in the Bill.

Richard Younger-Ross: Will the Minister consider the Lords amendments regarding the licensing of acoustic groups that play in pubs? If 50 to 100 people gather to watch a football match on a wide screen in a pub, they make a lot of noise and the referee's whistle can be heard clearly down the street; if there are two people in a pub listening to a boy with a tin whistle, a licence will be required. Is that not nonsense?

Richard Caborn: I answered that question during the discussion of amendments last week. No representations have been made with regard to regulating the showing of football matches in public places; neither the police nor anyone else has made such a representation. So it is not correct to draw a parallel between that and what we are trying to achieve with our modernisation of the licensing laws in this country.

Kelvin Hopkins: My right hon. Friend will be aware that Ireland has had an unhappy experience with relaxing alcohol licensing and is now considering reversing the decision, which led to a surge in alcohol consumption in that country. Will my right hon. Friend consult his Irish counterparts and look at the experience there?

Richard Caborn: I do not know about meeting my Irish counterpart, but I was in Dublin the weekend before last at the special Olympics and I did not see any of the activities to which my hon. Friend referred. Five areas underpin the modernisation of licensing in this country; crime, disorder, public nuisance, safety and the protection of children. We have looked at the experiences worldwide, which have underpinned our modernisation.

Malcolm Moss: In last Tuesday's debate on the Licensing Bill, and again a few moments ago, the Minister denied having received any representation from the Association of Chief Police Officers regarding its wish to license the showing of televised sporting events on wide screens in pubs. ACPO has now confirmed to us that an exchange of e-mails with the Minister's officials took place on this issue last year. Was the Minister told about this? If not, will he question his officials? If he was, does he wish at this late stage to put the record straight?

Richard Caborn: I did not know that those representations had been made, but I take the hon. Gentleman's word. I have not seen those representations and I will ask my officials to let me see them.

Bob Blizzard: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new responsibilities. Will he reflect further on the Bill—despite all the good that is in it—and ask himself whether there is not some inconsistency between the large-scale transmission of sports events or pop concerts not requiring a licence and the requirement for the smallest kind of live music event to be licensed? Is not the way forward not to abolish the two in the bar rule but to modernise it and come up with new de minimis arrangements that would permit harmless small-scale acoustic entertainment to escape the net of local authority licensing?

Richard Caborn: What we have been trying to do in the Bill is to provide greater access to music in public places, and in particular in licensed premises. We are introducing a single licence for liquor and entertainment, with a modest fee, and incorporating six licensing authorities into one. That, underpinned by the principles that I have just outlined, will give live music in public places a tremendous lift. That is the intention of the Bill, and that is what we believe will happen.

Olympic Bid

John Barrett: What discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive regarding the 2012 Olympic bid.

Tessa Jowell: I discussed the London bid to host the Olympics and Paralympics in 2012 with Scottish colleagues at the sports cabinet earlier this year, and they were supportive of our intentions. That is the body that brings together the four home country Ministers with responsibility for sport. My officials have also had various discussions with their Scottish Executive counterparts. This is an important issue, and in order to build on the cross-party support, as well as support in the other home countries, it is my intention to arrange regular briefings for representatives from Opposition Front Benches, to keep them abreast of developments.

John Barrett: Given that Scotland has some of the best football fans in the country, and some world-class stadiums, will the Secretary of State ensure that the nations and regions of the country are involved in the bid, so that sports such as football can be played north of the border in the Olympics?

Tessa Jowell: Yes, of course, and I have said on a number of occasions that it is my great hope that, right across the United Kingdom, there is support for the Olympic bid, and there will be participation in building local facilities and ensuring that the bid, which we hope will bring the games to London, will truly reflect the sporting ambition of the whole of the UK.

John Greenway: As hon. Members will be aware, I am stepping down from the Front Bench today after six years, three of them in this brief, which I have much enjoyed—although, subject to the approval of the House, I hope to have an important role to play in the scrutiny of the forthcoming gambling Bill.
	The Secretary of State will know that I have been unswerving in my support for a London bid for the Olympics. I welcome what she said about cross-party support and briefings for Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, for which I asked her, but does she not agree that it is absolutely vital that there be leadership from the very top of Government if the bid is to succeed? While the appointment of Barbara Cassani, albeit only on a two-and-a-half-day week, is generally welcome, I believe that the Government need to do more to convince the House and the wider public that there will be leadership from the very top, because without it I fear we may fail.

Tessa Jowell: First, I wish the hon. Gentleman well in his next enterprise and thank him for his support for the Olympic bid over the past few months.
	We went through months of deliberation about the case for bidding precisely so that we could provide that leadership and support for Barbara Cassani, our bid chair, and the whole bid company. They deserve nothing less. They have our 100 per cent. support, as I made clear to Barbara Cassani when I met her last Friday.

Pete Wishart: The Secretary of State will of course be aware that the vast majority of the cost of the London Olympics will come out of national UK lottery funding, which will undoubtedly have an impact on the charities that lottery money supports. In her discussions with the Scottish Executive, has she made an assessment of the cost to Scottish charities if the London bid is successful?

Tessa Jowell: The answer is yes. We have received from the lottery regulator an assessment of the impact on good cause income of introducing the dedicated Olympic game. In the first six years, up to 2009, the impact will be slight, at around 4 per cent. of lottery income. After that, depending on the success of the Olympic game, the impact may be greater, and may extend to about 12 per cent. of good cause income. Yes, all the lottery distributors, including those relating to the devolved Administrations, are aware of the situation, but I should underline the fact that this bid involves the whole UK. The lottery is a UK lottery and all are aware of that. Support for the bid echoes right around the UK.

Angela Watkinson: How school sports facilities will benefit from the Olympic bid.

Richard Caborn: We want the whole of sport, including school sport, to benefit from the focus on, and the energy generated by, our bid for the Olympic games. Should we win that bid—as I hope that we shall—more state of the art facilities will be available for use by children, which will complement the new and refurbished facilities already being developed through the investment of some £500 million of New Opportunities Fund lottery money. Just over 2,000 individual schemes will be coming on-stream in about three to four months' time.

Angela Watkinson: As all London taxpayers will be obliged to contribute to the cost of the Olympic games, will the Minister ensure that consideration is given to upgrading the sporting facilities in schools in outer London boroughs such as Havering? Many competing teams, especially from smaller countries, would benefit from training in smaller facilities such as those provided in schools. And of course, such a development would also be of lasting benefit to the schools.

Richard Caborn: That is absolutely true, but the point is not predicated simply on the Olympic bid. Since this Government took office in 1997, we have tried to focus on investment in sports facilities, particularly through schools, and in the communities. That approach will continue in years to come. It is very important that we continue with such investment; indeed, some £750 million is currently being invested. The Olympic games bid provides a platform through which one can argue forcefully for the role of sport in our wider communities. I agree entirely with the hon. Lady—we need to continue with that argument, including in respect of schools in her own constituency.

Lindsay Hoyle: I recognise the importance of the Olympic bid and of ensuring that, as the Minister said, we have the necessary facilities in schools, but will he make sure that schools in outposts in Lancashire get their fair share of money and their sporting facilities upgraded?

Richard Caborn: Very much so, and through the allocation of the New Opportunities Fund we have tried to remove some of the competition. We have also asked local authorities to look strategically at how they will develop sports facilities. As my hon. Friend knows, we have just revised PPG17—planning policy guidance note 17—which now requests that all local authorities make a needs assessment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make an announcement at a sports summit that we are holding on 14 July, and we are developing a Domesday book that will, for the first time, provide a complete inventory of all of the sports facilities in this country. So we are making some significant advances in how we develop sports facilities—in both the public and private sectors.

John Whittingdale: But does the Minister accept that school sports will benefit from the Olympics only if the schools have playing fields to play on? Despite the Government's clear pledge in the Labour party sports manifesto to stop the sale of such fields, the latest figures from the National Playing Fields Association show that the number of applications to build on playing fields rose to 1,325 last year. Does the Minister agree with the NPFA's director, who said that these figures are disastrous and show that we have a Government who have lost their way?

Richard Caborn: I do not agree with the NPFA's comments and I shall give an example of why. The school on which the NPFA's director descended with the BBC and Sky TV on Friday—its headmaster was not very pleased about that—has just secured an £11.6 million deal with the local authority and a builder. It will have a modern, state-of-the-art school building; a new all-weather hockey and football pitch; a new five-court sports hall; a new hard-court multi-games area consisting of five tennis courts that can also be used for netball, basketball and five-aside football; and a new school gymnasium. A far greater number of young people, both from the school and from the wider community, will use those facilities. It is about time some people stopped living in the past and joined the modern age.

Jonathan R Shaw: One of the key drivers promoting education and sport has been the specialist schools programme in sports colleges. I greatly agree with my right hon. Friend's point about improving facilities. Unlike under the previous Government, schools now have the capital to make improvements. However, will there be liaison between the Minister's Department and the Department for Education and Skills, so that we can build on the specialist sports colleges and ensure that the schools can gain access to facilities for the Olympic bid?

Richard Caborn: Very much so, and as I said, I hope that the Olympic bid will bring this country's focus on to sport. As we roll out the 400 sports colleges, about seven secondary schools and 20 primary schools are linked in with them, along with 3,000 school sports co-ordinators. I remind the House that that means a teacher—backed by another teacher—having two to three days off a week to devote solely to sport. It is part of a commitment to give every child from the age of five to 16 two hours of quality physical activity or sport every week. That is a real commitment to ensuring that young people are not only well educated but fit: we believe that the two things go hand in hand. The Olympics will help us to deliver that and involve young people. I do not believe that this country has made such an investment in sport, in respect of individuals or facilities, for many years.

Nick Hawkins: We all hope that the next generation of schoolchildren will be inspired by the Olympic bid, and I know that the Minister shares my view on that. We all want to work on an all-party basis with the new bid leader, now that the name has been announced, but does the Minister not recognise that many of us and our constituents are rather concerned that the Government were unable to find a British bid leader who would work full-time on the project? Would not a British leader have inspired schoolchildren more? Does the Minister accept that it is inconceivable that the French, Spanish or Americans would have failed to appoint one of their own nationals as a bid leader?

Richard Caborn: I do not accept that. Let us consider the England football team, tennis players, or swimming—Bill Sweetenham is the senior swimming coach, for example. Sport is international. What we have done is secure the best person for the job, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree with that. East London is probably the most cosmopolitan area in the world, so I do not believe that nationality means anything. I hope that the whole House and everyone in the nation will get behind the Olympic bid led by Barbara Cassani—a first-class person who has been here for 19 years, whose kids were born here and whose husband is English. Quite honestly, I do not think that we could have secured a better person to head the bid. It is a break with the past. Some people in the Olympic organisation said that they expected a Lord or someone in a grey suit to lead the bid, and the break with tradition has shocked some people. However, we now have someone leading the bid who is dynamic, who knows the business and has proved that she can bring her past achievements to the Olympic bid.

Tourism

Peter Luff: What assessment she has made of the impact of international terrorism on numbers of tourists visiting England; and if she will make a statement.

Richard Caborn: Overseas visitor numbers fell by 4 per cent. in the three months to April, but recent evidence suggests that the inbound market is now recovering. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the problem was not only due to international terrorism: severe acute respiratory syndrome and the aftermath of the Iraq war were other factors. VisitBritain is working with the industry on campaigns to continue to promote Britain around the world as a safe and attractive tourist destination.

Peter Luff: I certainly share the sentiments expressed in the Minister's concluding remarks, but is not England curiously badly placed to deal with the risk to the international tourism market? The last figures that I have with me show a spending of £3.77 per head of population on Scottish tourism promotion; £4.03 for Wales; and 20p for England. Is it not time to defend more effectively one of the most successful brands and proudest nations in the international tourism market?

Richard Caborn: If the hon. Gentleman had continued with the figures he would have shown that the spend power is £220 per head in respect of coming to England; 80 per cent. of the return on inward bound tourism is effectively inside England. We can argue the economics, but it needs to be said clearly that, although there is a perception of risk out there, quite honestly Britain—and England—are probably the safest destinations in western Europe. That needs to be said loud and clear to a lot of people. It is good to see the figures improving. BAA's figures show that in May there was a 2 per cent. increase in traffic against the same period last year. We are seeing a slight rise in the market and confidence is coming back, which is to be welcomed.

Ann Cryer: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend is aware that visitor numbers at St. Paul's cathedral will be well down this year. St. Paul's feels that that is due to a reduction in the market from Japan and America. However, my right hon. Friend will be delighted to learn that passenger numbers on the Worth valley railway in my constituency are up this year. That indicates that the fall in visitor numbers at St. Paul's has something to do with international terrorism and other things. Will the Department do everything in its power to encourage back some of those visitors?

Richard Caborn: The answer to that, obviously, is yes.

Andrew MacKinlay: Team trains.

Richard Caborn: Yes, team trains to Keighley.
	What must be understood about the London market is that, last year, for the first time in history, I think, business tourism overtook leisure tourism, so there is a structural difference between the London market and those outside the UK. That may reflect on some of the visitor attractions in London. This is an important issue. Business tourism and sports tourism were two of the largest growth areas in the overall tourism industry. I take on board the points that have been made but I assure my hon. Friend that St. Paul's is reviewing its visitor plans. I am hopeful that more visitors will start to be attracted to that establishment, which is a beautiful place to go.

Nick Harvey: The Government responded to 11 September with a modest injection of cash for tourism promotion and have subsequently formed VisitBritain, but is the Minister satisfied that it has enough resources at its disposal? Is not tourism a very competitive international market? Is it not worth £75 billion a year to Britain? Does the Minister not think that VisitBritain needs to have at its disposal the resources that our international competitors have? Will he deal with the excellent point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) about the continuing anomaly between the funding of English tourism and that in Scotland and Wales?

Richard Caborn: One of the hon. Gentleman's points may be true, in the sense that when the split came with Wales and Scotland and they set up their development agencies, English tourism was left in the Department of Trade and Industry. Recently, we have ensured that tourism comes into the mainstream economic development of the English regions. That is why we brought into play the regional development agencies, which are seen as a major part of the development—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) will listen I will tell him what we are doing. The RDAs are now seen as a major part of the development of the economies of each of the English regions. Indeed, the former chairman of the South West of England regional development agency, Sir Michael Lickiss, is playing a major role in the development of tourism in England and the United Kingdom. I think that tourism will probably play a greater part in the development of the English regions than it has in the past.

Lawrie Quinn: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his new brief.Since 1997, we have had a Scotsman, a Lancastrian and a Welshman promoting British tourism, and it is great to see a true Yorkshireman in that post. I hope that he will remember that Britain's greatest break is in Yorkshire and that he will come during the summer and learn first hand from the Yorkshire tourist board how it has tried to redress the balance in getting international visitors to come to Yorkshire to see England's greatest county. I hope that he will take the opportunity to learn from Yorkshire.

Richard Caborn: Occasionally, missionaries have to be sent out of Yorkshire to other parts of the UK. Last weekend, I had a fantastic time in the Lake district. The sun shone all the time. It is probably one of the most beautiful places in the world, but as my hon. Friend said Yorkshire is a fantastic region.

Peter Luff: It is a county.

Richard Caborn: I call it a region, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. Scarborough is a wonderful place to visit, too. It has had fantastic success over the past two or three years in attracting visitors.

John Whittingdale: We, too, congratulate the Minister on his new responsibilities, but does it not say something about the priority that the Government attach to tourism that, following the botched reshuffle, the job has simply been tacked on to the end of his existing responsibilities?
	As others have said, Scotland spends 20 times as much as England does on tourism, and Wales spends 30 times as much. Does the Minister accept the verdict of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport that tourism in England is seriously underfunded and that the Government are not providing adequate support? In particular, when does he expect a sector skills council to be established to address the serious skills shortage throughout the industry?

Richard Caborn: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the skills of the industry, which are of concern to the nine regional development agencies. We hope to make an announcement in the autumn about the sector skills council.
	On funding, I have already said to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) that the return to England is considerably greater.
	More importantly, we need to bring tourism centre stage. The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) may ridicule the fact that tourism has been placed alongside sport, but that was done for strategic reasons and has been welcomed by the more informed commentators. Bringing sport and tourism together is to be welcomed, particularly as we move towards the bid for the Olympic games. There is synergy and a rationale behind that change, and our approach to the Olympics and the general development of tourism will benefit.

Iraqi Cultural Objects

Harry Cohen: What stolen Iraqi cultural objects have been recovered since 19 May; and if she will make a statement.

Tessa Jowell: The Coalition Provisional Authority, with the support of expert officials nominated by my Department, is assessing the scale of looting from Iraq's museums and cultural sites. As I made clear at our last Question Time, however, it will be some time before a full inventory of stolen and recovered Iraqi cultural artefacts is completed. The amnesty conducted by United States forces has had some positive results since 19 May, with several key pieces, including the Warka vase, being returned to the Iraq museum.
	I should like to take this opportunity to clarify my reply of 19 May 2003 to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). I intended to state that there were 170,000 items in the museum's collection, not 170 artefacts taken from the museum.
	Given all the reports about the scale of losses, Members should be aware that 90 per cent. of artefacts were taken into safe-keeping before the conflict started.

Harry Cohen: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, and I welcome the assessment being made in respect of the full inventory. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, as Neil MacGregor, head of the British Museum, is reported as saying in Glasgow's The Herald, there appears to have been informed and planned looting and that 32 of the most prized artefacts are still missing? Can she respond to the eminent archaeologist, Dan Cruickshank, who has expressed alarm at the part-reopening of Baghdad museum on 3 July? Will the museum and the artefacts on display there be safe?

Tessa Jowell: It seems that losses arose in three ways. First, a number of artefacts were taken away before the Gulf war and have not yet been returned. Secondly, artefacts were removed from the museum by the regime, and efforts are being made to locate them; some were taken to banks, but others have not yet been identified. Thirdly, there seems to be some evidence of systematic criminal theft, and, as I have made clear, some artefacts were removed by looting.
	It is desired to open the museum again as quickly as possible, but that must be negotiated in the context of the security situation. Subject to that, I hope to go to Baghdad later this year to see at first hand the efforts made by my staff and the Coalition Provisional Authority on an area that is key to the restoration of democracy in Iraq.

Sydney Chapman: I appreciate that, for obvious reasons, the right hon. Lady cannot have complete control over the issue, but she said that before the war 90 per cent. of the artefacts were taken away for safe-keeping. As two months have passed since the end of the war, the 90 per cent. of artefacts that have not been returned must have been looted, or taken by the now illegal regime. Surely it is possible to make a firm estimate of what has been saved and what has been lost—hopefully, in relation to the latter, only temporarily rather than permanently.

Tessa Jowell: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's frustration, but when museum staff were in this country a few weeks ago they made it clear that compiling the comprehensive inventory of what had happened to the artefacts would take time. They wanted to ensure that they had time to do that, which will obviously have a bearing on when the museum reopens.
	Ninety per cent. of the artefacts were removed; we do not know where they were all taken. There will be a painstaking examination of clues and trails, and there will be further pleas for their return under amnesty. We shall provide support to that enterprise, which is being led by the British Museum, for as long as is necessary and for as long as that support is welcome.

Richard Allan: Does the Secretary of State share my concern that, out of sight of the media, archaeological sites across Iraq are at risk of looting as long as the security situation remains so desperately poor? Will she support calls by experts in the field to improve customs controls to stop material being smuggled out of Iraq and to instruct visiting journalists and military personnel in Iraq not to buy archaeological souvenirs?

Tessa Jowell: Yes, I share the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the reports of continued looting. Consistent with the security situation, my officials, who are in various centres in Iraq, are making every effort to visit sites. After our last oral questions, I was able to place a letter of reassurance in the Library, following the allegations about the defacing of the Ziggurat at Ur. We have a partial report on the damage caused by looting, and we shall continue to update and improve such reports.
	On the international trade in illicit objects, the hon. Gentleman will know that we have secured a stronger position through the UN mandate that is now in place. We hope that his private Member's Bill will soon be on the statute book. The art market in London and, indeed, around the world is co-operating to ensure that there is no market in artefacts that belong to the Iraqi people.

Theatres (Lichfield)

Michael Fabricant: What plans she has to visit Lichfield to discuss support for theatres in the city.

Estelle Morris: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State tells me that she will visit Lichfield tomorrow as part of a regional visit to the west midlands. She looks forward to opening the Lichfield Garrick arts centre and the festival that will take place over the summer.

Michael Fabricant: May I welcome the right hon. Lady back to the Front Bench? Members on both sides of the House are glad to see her there.
	Does not my question demonstrate the importance of Question Time? I ask a question about the Secretary of State visiting Lichfield and the Minister responds immediately by saying that the Secretary of State will do so tomorrow.
	When the Secretary of State visits the Lichfield Garrick, will she look at the theatre's innovative ecological system? All the cooling is generated by natural sources and does not use air conditioning. Is she aware that the system was designed by the chair of the school of architecture at the university of Cambridge? In Lichfield, we lead the way not only in the arts but in technology, and we have a green Conservative district council, too.

Estelle Morris: The hon. Gentleman spoilt that at the end, but never mind. I thank him for his generous comments.
	My right hon. Friend always does what she says; she promised to visit and she is delighted to be able to do so. I shall draw her attention to the ecological cooling system that has been installed, although I bet she would sooner see a performance than an ecological cooling system. However, I am delighted that the building is a good one.
	The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point, because when we invest capital in places such as theatres and arts centres, we also want to see living architecture and technology. I hope that many people not only from his constituency but also—dare I say?—from my constituency in neighbouring Birmingham will be able to take advantage of the new facilities.

Jim Marshall: May I also welcome my right hon. Friend back to the Front Bench? I am tempted to ask the Secretary of State to go via Leicester on her way to Lichfield tomorrow, to discuss the problems of the Leicester Haymarket theatre, but I know that you, Mr. Speaker, would rule me out of order if I were to do so.
	When the Secretary of State is in Lichfield tomorrow, discussing the future of theatres there and elsewhere, will she bear in mind two points? First, when the future of a theatre is being discussed, it is essential that all the theatre's members of staff, including those who are members of the Broadcasting Entertainment Cinematograph and Theatre Union—the appropriate trade union—should be involved in the discussions; and secondly, where Arts Council money is involved, it should be spent on keeping theatres open, rather than on closing them.

Estelle Morris: I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is looking forward to talking to my hon. Friend shortly. Of course I take those points. When public money is spent on theatres, it is important that everyone with an interest has a chance to express a view, but it is a cause for celebration that the increase in theatre funding has been so substantial during the past year. It is now £70 million—£25 million more than the previous year. My hon. Friend asks about who is consulted, but if the extra resources were not going in it would not matter who was consulted—no one would have any money. I take his point, but I am sure that he will join me in welcoming the extra resources being given to this very important part of our national heritage.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

Postal Voting

Bob Russell: What assessment the Commission has made in its inquiry into the 2003 local election pilots of the scope for fraud in postal voting.

Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission's report on the 33 all-postal voting pilot schemes that ran at the May local government elections in England will be submitted to the Government on 31 July. It will consider, among other issues, the scope for fraud and the implications for security.

Bob Russell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that response, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will deplore any examples of postal vote fraud that come to light. Does he agree that, in households with a dominant member, houses in multiple occupation and blocks of flats, the scope for fraud is such that perhaps we should not be going down the route of all postal vote elections?

Peter Viggers: The hon. Gentleman, no doubt, is reflecting on the fact that the turnout at the local election in May was only 28 per cent. in his constituency. It is entirely appropriate that we should look at ways to encourage postal voting and other forms of voting. Each of the statutory orders giving effect to the pilot schemes included a requirement that returning officers should inform the commission and prosecuting authorities of any possible offence. The commission is now liaising with local authorities involved in pilot schemes to identify any substantial allegation of fraud or malpractice. The commission is also in contact with the Crown Prosecution Service and local police forces.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Church Collections

Anne McIntosh: If he will make a statement on the level of income from collections the Church of England has received in each of the last four years.

Stuart Bell: The total direct giving by members through standing order, payroll giving and cash in the last four years for which data are available—1998 to 2001—amounted to £244 million, £253 million, £268 million and £282 million.

Anne McIntosh: I welcome that reply, which is obviously good news for the Church of England, but does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the grave anxiety about the appointment of bishops might lead to a fall in church attendance and future church collections? Has he given some thought to how that could be overcome?

Stuart Bell: I am happy to reply—certainly in respect of giving. The 2001 figure that I gave increases by £52 million if tax recovered is added to the equation, and parochial church councils have received a further £149 million of restricted money. The Church welcomes that increase, but I am not entirely sure that it can be related to the appointment of bishops.

Jane Griffiths: On the appointment of bishops, will my hon. Friend take a view on the murky political campaign that is being conducted to overturn the appointment of the Bishop of Reading, which has been approved by Her Majesty the Queen?

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. I am sure that she is perfectly aware, as is the House, that the appointment of suffragan bishops falls within the purview of the Acts of 1534 and 1898. Once the sovereign has approved the appointment under the 1574 Act, the archbishop is legally obliged, in the absence of any lawful impediment, to proceed to consecrate the suffragan.

Paul Burstow: Given the increased call on the Church's collection income to meet the demands of the parish assessment or quota, how can anyone—a regular giver or otherwise—obtain information that enables them to make sensible comparisons between the performance of one diocese and another in terms of delivering on financial management, property management and other aspects that lead to increased costs?

Stuart Bell: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point on how we relate and compare the costs of different dioceses. I am sure that he will wish to bear in mind the fact that, each year, the Church must find £800 million for its upkeep. Although we are content to see giving increasing, the problems remain enormous. The Church Commissioners are considering the type of analysis that he is calling for within the domain for which they are responsible.

Atypical Workers

Huw Edwards: What representations the Commissioners have made in the course of the review by the Department of Trade and Industry of employment rights for atypical workers.

Stuart Bell: My hon. Friend will recall from previous answers that I have given to the House that the Archbishops Council responded to the Department of Trade and Industry's discussion paper at the end of last year. I have placed a copy of it in the Library.

Huw Edwards: May I express the hope that the Government will recognise that ministers of religion and other clergy should be included in employment legislation? Does he accept that that is only the first stage and that they should also be included in anti-discrimination legislation? Does he share my view that all those ministers and clergy who are subject to discrimination on grounds of their sex, race or sexual orientation deserve our support and, most especially, the Bishop of Reading?

Stuart Bell: The position of the Bishop of Reading runs as a thread through our Question Time. However, I shall refer to the specific question, which is about the employment rights of the clergy. I assure my hon. Friend that the convocations in the House of Laity will put forward a paper on this subject at the July sessions of the General Synod. The Church is considering carefully the issue of human rights within the Church and employment rights. It is opposed entirely to discrimination of any sort and, in particular, to the discrimination of the sort to which my hon. Friend refers.

John Bercow: I agree with the hon. Members for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) and for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) and assume, for the purposes of this question, that a bishop can be considered to be an atypical worker, so will the hon. Gentleman underline the point that Bishop John's skill as a theologian and his capacity for spiritual leadership should be the guiding criteria in favour of his appointment? His personal proclivities in terms of sexual orientation are no concern of anyone.

Stuart Bell: As I indicated earlier, the appointment of a suffragan bishop falls within the Acts of Parliament of 1534 and 1898, and none of those Acts refers to the matters that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. The appointment has been approved by the sovereign under those Acts, and the archbishop is legally obliged—in the absence of any lawful impediment—to proceed to the consecration of the suffragan.

Ben Chapman: On the matter of employment rights, the Commissioners have given the impression of proceeding at the slowest possible pace and in a manner that is somewhat grudging. Will my hon. Friend tell me whether that impression is rightly or wrongly based?

Stuart Bell: I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that it is wrongly based. I thought that he would have taken comfort from the fact that the convocations in the House of Laity will put forward an interim report at the July sessions of the General Synod. I am sure that he will also be comforted by the fact that there has been an initial meeting with Amicus. Therefore, the Church is not being tardy; in my view, it has been quite sprightly.

Clergy Recruitment

David Rendel: What assessment the Church Commissioners have made of the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 for the recruitment of clergy in the Church of England.

Stuart Bell: It would fall to the Archbishops Council to make such an assessment. I understand that it has not yet done so.

David Rendel: Will the hon. Gentleman report back to the Church Commissioners that a great deal of concerted opinion has been expressed in the House during Question Time that the appointment of the Bishop of Reading was good and should certainly be allowed to proceed? Will he report that any indication that the Church of England discriminates on the ground of sexual orientation when appointing bishops would be against the best interests of the Church itself?

Stuart Bell: The proceedings of our House on Church business are widely read in and outside the Church, and I am sure that the Commissioners and the wider Church will note the hon. Gentleman's views with great care. As I indicated earlier, all steps that have been taken on the appointment of a suffragan bishop in this case are within the laws of the land, and I have no doubt that a consecration will go ahead.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

Local Government Boundaries

Gordon Prentice: What the estimated cost is of the forthcoming review of local government boundaries in the north-west.

Peter Viggers: The reviews will be undertaken by the boundary committee for England, which is a statutory committee of the commission. The committee has not estimated the cost of carrying out a review in the north-west alone. However, for budgetary purposes, it was estimated that costs of around £6.2 million would be incurred by conducting local government reviews of three regions.

Gordon Prentice: I think that £6.2 million is an underestimate of the true costs and that we need local government reorganisation like we need a hole in the head. Will the electoral committee examine the opportunity costs of the reorganisation of England into three regional assembly areas, bearing in mind that councillors and senior officers will be poring over local government maps—not concentrating on service delivery but examining the reconfiguration of local government maps? That is a complete waste of time.

Peter Viggers: The legislative framework for the matter is quite sophisticated. The boundary committee received a direction from the Deputy Prime Minister and will report to him. Therefore, policy on the issue is not a matter for the Speaker's Committee or the Electoral Commission, and questions should be addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Libraries

Hugh Bayley: How many libraries are funded by the Church Commissioners in (a) the south and (b) the north of England.

Stuart Bell: The Commissioners fund small collections in the house of every diocesan bishop, but the great majority of their financial responsibility is represented by Lambeth palace library, a major collection of national significance.

Hugh Bayley: Does my hon. Friend agree that the other major church collection of national significance is the York Minster library? Is he aware that the First Church Estates Commissioner, Andreas Whittam Smith, is currently examining how best to conserve the documentary heritage of the Church's national institutions, including Lambeth palace library? Will my hon. Friend meet Mr. Whittam Smith to discuss a proposal that I put to him that it might be wise if the terms of reference for the study of Lambeth palace library were broadened to include York Minster library?

Stuart Bell: My hon. Friend will know that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners Act 1866 gave our predecessors the power to maintain Lambeth palace library. Following the Church Commissioners Measure 1947, the library and the power to maintain it were vested in the Church Commissioners. My hon. Friend is also aware—I have read his comments in the York Evening Press—that York Minster library is the property of the dean and chapter. I am aware that he has been in touch with the First Church Estates Commissioner about the reference of the review that we are holding on documentary heritage. I shall be glad to take up my hon. Friend's suggestion and speak to the First Church Estates Commissioner about the matter.

Bob Spink: While considering Church funding of libraries, are the Commissioners fully seized of the importance of the internet to increase accessibility to Church matters, especially for young people? Will they consider promoting the use of the internet through their library service?

Stuart Bell: The Church has an extensive internet system of its own that is quite widely used. We would, of course, welcome greater use of it. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) is not in the Chamber. I am also going to Lichfield this weekend, where I will visit the library as well as the festival. I may see the Secretary of State en route.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

Electoral Systems

Kevin Brennan: What discussions the Committee has had with the Electoral Commission about the level of comprehension among voters of the electoral systems of the (a) devolved Administrations and (b) proposed English regional assemblies.

Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission commented briefly on public comprehension of the voting system for the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament in research reports published in December 2002. The issue is also addressed in the ICM research report on the May 2003 Scottish Parliament elections, published by the commission earlier this month. The electoral system to be used for any regional assemblies has still to be decided.

Kevin Brennan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer. In the reports, did the Electoral Commission give credence to the opinion put about by supporters of first past the post that the general public are too thick to understand the electoral system used for the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament? Surely the fact that they are bright enough to understand it and use it well, and that it produces a fair result, is a good recommendation that it should be used for English regional assemblies.

Peter Viggers: The commission's reports "Scotland Votes?" and "Wales Votes?", published last year, considered public attitudes to voting systems at the 1999 elections. They indicated that understanding the voting system was a factor affecting the decision on whether to vote in a small percentage in cases. The commission's statutory reports on the 2003 elections in Scotland and Wales will again make use of public opinion research to measure voter comprehension of electoral systems.

Fire White Paper

John Prescott: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the fire and rescue service.
	Today I am publishing our White Paper "Our Fire and Rescue Service". It sets out our plans to modernise and reform the fire and rescue service in England and Wales. Copies are available in the Vote Office.
	The fire and rescue service is a vital public service. It is part of the fabric of our communities. The service it provides is essential in preventing fires and in responding quickly and effectively to fire emergencies. It also has a much wider role, which involves rescuing people from accidents, responding to environmental disasters, such as flooding, and being ready to respond to the threat of terrorist incidents, which unfortunately is an increasingly important role.
	The Government are committed to modernisation and reform of all our public services. We want to build on what is good in the fire service and tackle those areas where there are shortcomings, many of which have been exposed in the course of the dispute over the past 12 months. I hope that with the publication of today's White Paper we can all look ahead to a better future for the fire and rescue service and draw a line under what has happened over the past year.
	It was in response to the dispute that last September we asked Professor Sir George Bain to carry out an independent review into the fire service and to make recommendations on how the service might be modernised and improved. Sir George's review built on previous reports into the fire service and drew on the evidence from a wide range of interested parties. Sir George reported last December. I am grateful for his work and the work of Sir Michael Lyons, the past chief executive of Birmingham city council, and Sir Anthony Young, past president of the TUC, who assisted him in that review. Today's White Paper is the Government's response to Sir George Bain's report.
	The White Paper sets out our proposals for the fire and rescue service of the future. The service will be more proactive in preventing fires; it will have more effective institutions better to support its role and purpose; it will be more effectively led and managed and will be better able to adapt to change and to respond safely, quickly and efficiently. Above all, the reformed fire and rescue service will save more lives and reduce injuries.
	The House will be well aware that the fire service of today has many strengths, not least of which are the firefighters and other support staff who work in the service. They are committed to the service and, I believe, share our wish to see it improved, but, to do that, change is essential. I do not believe that the service can continue to be run in the same way as it has been since the national pay dispute 25 years ago. The White Paper therefore proposes a sensible package of changes that will make the service more effective, efficient and safer, and the jobs of those people who work in the service more rewarding.
	The White Paper has six themes. First, it explains the new emphasis of the service on the prevention of fires and other emergencies as well as on firefighting. Much can be done by sensible fire precautions and other measures to reduce the number of fires that start and reduce the risk to our firefighters. For instance, we will continue to review the building regulations, rationalise existing legislation and increase our investment in community fire safety, arson reduction measures and measures to combat terrorism. We will also make changes so that fire authorities will ensure a better allocation of resources on the basis of risk.
	The risk-based approach means that more emergency cover will be available at times of highest risk. At present, cover is based on the number and type of buildings in an area, rather than on the risks faced by the people in them. In future, authorities will plan to provide cover for all the risks facing our communities, not just those from fire. In recognition of that wider role we will rename the fire service as the fire and rescue service.
	Secondly, the White Paper sets out our proposals for a more coherent regional approach to fire and rescue. Professor Bain, in his report, recognised the strength of argument in favour of regional organisation of the fire service. Current arrangements for managing the fire service are confused and inefficient. There are too many small fire authorities that cannot generate economies of scale and do not have the resources to tackle some of the major threats, particularly those from terrorism, facing us today. For example, the cost of control rooms responding to a single fire incident ranges from £168 in the smallest authority to £18 in the largest. That is an ineffective use of resources. We therefore expect local fire authorities to set in hand arrangements at regional level so they are more efficient, more effective and better able to respond flexibly to threats and emergencies.
	In due course, where directly elected regional assemblies are established, we envisage there being regional fire and rescue authorities that are democratically accountable to those assemblies. The fire and rescue service is, however, delivered locally. Better regional co-ordination and management of the service must not detract from the local focus of the service on working with communities on fire prevention and other community safety measures. We will work closely with local authorities, the Local Government Association and others to ensure that that happens. In accordance with Bain's recommendations, and with the support of the Welsh Assembly, we will devolve responsibility for fire issues to Wales.
	Thirdly, the White Paper sets out the institutional changes that we will make to improve the management of the service. Current fire service institutions date back to the period immediately after the second world war. Reform is long overdue. In line with the Bain recommendations we will seek external, impartial advice to assist us in giving national strategic direction to the service. We will set up a service improvement team in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to drive through the modernisation process. We will also set up two forums to inform policy development. One will seek the practical input of those working in the service, and the other will get the wider views of stakeholders representing business and the communities.
	I also intend to ask the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Associations, to play a greater role in developing policy. Like their counterparts in the police service, chief fire officers are critical to the effective management of the service. We want to see stronger leadership, better co-operation and more effective management of the fire and rescue service. We will create a new centre of excellence based on the Fire Service College, and we will reform the fire services inspectorate.
	Fourthly, the White Paper sets out our plans for improved scrutiny and inspection. In line with Bain's advice we are working with the Audit Commission to develop its role in inspecting and reporting on the work of the service. Fifthly, the White Paper sets out changes to reform the machinery for negotiating pay and conditions. The shortcomings of the current arrangements have been clearly exposed during the fire dispute. At present, the employers side has to represent 58 separate fire brigade employers. That is simply too unwieldy to work effectively, so we will set up three smaller bodies to negotiate pay and conditions for chief fire officers, middle managers, and firefighters and control room staff.
	Finally, the White Paper sets out our proposals for modernising the personnel management arrangements of the service. Firefighting is a popular occupation; on average, there are 40 applicants for every job. However, there are real problems. At present, there are no systems whereby the best performers can progress quickly; the service does not fully represent the communities that it serves; and there are real problems recruiting retained or part-time firefighters. Retained firefighters crew more than half of the appliances in this country, so it is vital to the future of the fire and rescue service to attract new retained firefighters.
	To tackle those issues the White Paper sets out how we intend to work with employers and employees to introduce the new integrated personnel development system to build best practice into the service. We will introduce multi-level entry in the fire and rescue service and accelerated development schemes. We will introduce measures to promote diversity and to end any bullying or harassment. We will reform and modernise the pensions system, and we will modernise the disputes and disciplinary arrangements to bring them into line with ACAS best practice.
	The White Paper sets out a practical programme of change for the fire and rescue service. It is a programme of change that I believe should be welcomed by all. The White Paper will benefit the public and business, who rely on the service to protect them from danger and rescue them from incidents; it will benefit authorities and managers through a safer, more efficient and effective service; and it will benefit all those who work in the service by providing greater career opportunities and more work satisfaction. I believe that when they look at the detail of this White Paper, the great majority of firefighters will see the good sense in the proposals. We will send a summary of the White Paper to every firefighter in the country. I hope that they and their families will take the time to read it.
	The White Paper allows us to look ahead to the future and leave behind the difficulties of the past year. It sets out the future for a modern fire and rescue service—a service focused on fire prevention; a service that works with and for the community; a service that is fair to all the staff who work in it. The White Paper is good news for the fire and rescue service. It provides for a modern, efficient and safe service for the 21st century and will be good for Britain. I commend the White Paper to the House.

David Davis: I begin by thanking the Deputy Prime Minister for making a statement today and for giving me prior sight of it—albeit one read something of a trailer in The Times and The Sun, and even in the Daily Mail and heard one on the BBC this morning. I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman had nothing to do with that; none the less, it bore all the hallmarks of a co-ordinated briefing exercise and I would like him to look into it.
	Inside the front cover of the White Paper it says that the price is £12.25. In truth, of course, the cost of the White Paper has been immeasurable. To get to this point, we have faced an unnecessary year-long dispute; great risk to the public at time of national hazard; excessive stress on the armed forces, who were made to fight fires as well as wars; and financial costs to the taxpayer of £100 million or more. By any measure, the cost of the White Paper has been immense, and if it is to justify that cost it must deliver dramatic improvements in our fire service.
	I am sure that there is much in the White Paper that we will support and commend, but I tell the Deputy Prime Minister that in other European countries, such as the Netherlands, Switzerland and Austria, rates of death from fire are much lower than they are in the United Kingdom. If we lowered our rate to match that of the Swiss or the Dutch, we would save about 300 lives a year. New Zealand, which four years ago had the same level of fatalities as us, has halved its death rate as a result of reforms; in this country, that would be equivalent to about 300 lives a year. My first question to the Deputy Prime Minister is, therefore, will he estimate how many lives the reforms flowing from the White Paper will save every year?
	The reform will entail a major overhaul of the fire service's structure. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that overhaul and the financing of pay increases that he has approved will be achieved by cuts to the number of firefighters and stations? Some fire services are more efficient than others: how will he ensure that today's efficient brigades will not be penalised because they have less scope to save money to pay for the increases? Will the grant formula in respect of such authorities, many of them Tory, explicitly recognise that? Will the reforms result in disproportionate manpower cuts in metropolitan brigades?
	Throughout the past year's long dispute, the retained firefighters of this country have performed heroically, standing by their posts and by the public when others went on strike. Given that, will the right hon. Gentleman today repeat the guarantee that he has given me before that not one of our much-valued retained firefighters will lose his job as a result of the reform process?
	Will the Deputy Prime Minister also pledge that rural communities, which have already lost their post offices, their police stations, their schools and their health centres, will not be penalised as a result of the integrated risk management approach? If he decides to press ahead with station closures or moves, will he commit to holding local public consultations on the changes?
	The Deputy Prime Minister has announced today that he will move control of fire services from local authorities to his proposed regional assemblies. Can he explain how it will help, say, Kent's fire service to be amalgamated with that of Oxfordshire, or—perhaps more appropriate—Cheshire's with that of Cumbria? This will not reassure those who are concerned for the future of their local fire services. Yet again, power is moved upwards, away from real local control.
	Some of this morning's newspapers were headlined, "Prescott takes revenge on the firefighters". As a result, and unsurprisingly, other newspapers were headlined, "New Fire Strike Threat". The Government have clearly not lost the delicacy of touch that we have got used to over the past year.
	We understood from the Deputy Prime Minister, when he announced the settlement of the dispute, that the Fire Brigades Union had signed up to reform. If it is now threatening to strike over job losses, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House exactly the terms of the deal that he struck with the FBU behind closed doors?
	Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in the 21st century the fire service needs to operate within a no-strike culture, but that the quid pro quo for that is a modern and civilised pay review and arbitration process to ensure justice for the individual firefighter as well as a modern, effective and low-risk service for the public? There is no mention of such an arbitration mechanism in the right hon. Gentleman's statements. I shall be interested to hear what he has to say about that. After all, the right to strike is an important right, but that right is not more important than the public's right to life.
	When will we see legislation arising from the White Paper? In particular, what will happen to the Fire Services Bill that is now before another place? Obviously it has direct implications in this context.
	I have asked the Deputy Prime Minister a series of important questions, which I hope he will be able to address. We have made clear throughout the dispute that the Opposition will give the right hon. Gentleman support so long as his reforms are genuinely geared to saving lives. This must not be about revenge against the Fire Brigades Union and a display of synthetic machismo. It must not simply be an exercise in crude cost cutting to pay for the settlement. Instead, it must be about protecting the lives of the British public. In that endeavour, the right hon. Gentleman will always have our full support.

John Prescott: It is unusual for a Minister to offer thanks for an advance copy of an Opposition Member's brief—the right hon. Gentleman read it beautifully, and I have studied the questions. Indeed, he read his brief to a T and dotted the i's and crossed the t's.
	When the right hon. Gentleman printed his brief—I received it a couple of hours ago—he asked questions about the press, and asked me to ring him. I tried to do so, but he is a business man—a busy man—and I could not get through to him. Eventually, we spoke a few minutes before we entered the Chamber. I could explain exactly what I would need to explain to the House. As I told the right hon. Gentleman a few minutes ago, there is nothing in any of that briefing that is in the White Paper. We did not give the White Paper to anyone and we did not brief on it. None of the points in the newspaper stories is from the White Paper, and they do not repeat anything that has been mentioned in the House during debates and statements that I have made in the past.
	Surely the purpose of briefing newspapers is to get a favourable response. Given that one of the headlines is, "Prescott takes revenge on the firefighters", I miserably failed, if it was the case that I had briefed newspapers. However, I believe that the reporter involved has already apologised as that was not the intention of her story. I do not know whether it was. I do not talk to the press, as the House probably knows, except for the motoring correspondents in The Sun, but I leave that aside.
	I move on to the more serious questions that the right hon. Gentleman has asked. I welcome his recognition of the need for co-ordination and his welcome for the proposals that are set out in the White Paper. I think that that has been his position all along. The right hon. Gentleman asked about lower safety levels in Europe.

David Davis: Higher.

John Prescott: Yes, higher safety standards in the sense that they have fewer deaths and accidents in Europe. That was properly pointed out by the Bain review in which a great deal more emphasis was placed on prevention rather than intervention. That has always been behind what the Bain review recommended, and that is at the heart of the White Paper. I cannot give a guarantee, but I think that changing the procedures and roles will have the same effect in the United Kingdom as in Europe.

Philip Hammond: What is the estimate?

John Prescott: I cannot give an estimate of deaths and accidents. I would be silly to do so in the circumstances. However, we are changing things to make the system more effective, along the lines that have been adopted in Europe.
	I welcome the fact that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) is recommending that we should take a European approach to these matters, as a better way of dealing with them. It is not usually something that he has in mind, but I accept the proposition in this instance. As to the important question of whether sufficient resources would be available, a common complaint by the FBU and others is that we impose a lot of duties on them without finding sufficient resources. That is why the Government made extra resources available to settle the dispute. However, we will have to enter negotiations to make sure that the fire services are properly financed and have sufficient powers to guarantee a proper level of safety in both rural and urban areas. The risk assessment is based on that requirement, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that will happen.
	As for the question of whether there will be any compulsory redundancies, local authority leaders and the negotiating team have stated that there is no need for such redundancies, despite the scare stories often put about by the FBU of 10,000 redundancies. For example, in the first three years, under normal circumstances 1,500 will leave the service, and a further 2,500 could leave early in the next three years because of conditions such as pension arrangements. Between 4,000 and 6,000 workers could therefore leave the industry during that period. All we are saying is that we should take that into account when dealing with the modernisation of the service. People may not be in exactly the same job, and there may be changes—we have talked about that. If we put greater emphasis on prevention rather than intervention, that is inevitable. We have to enter into negotiations about that, but all the talk about closing fire stations and tens of thousands of fire workers becoming unemployed is totally untrue. During the 12 months of the dispute, a number of fire stations were closed with the co-operation of the FBU—FBU members wanted to move out of old fire stations into new fire stations in a different location. As the union says, it is not completely against modernisation. The new fire risk assessment, as it applies to people rather than buildings, may result in some readjustment, but that does not mean redundancies on the scale that the FBU is talking about. In fact, if all goes as expected, the employers have said that there will be no compulsory redundancies and, based on the figures, I do not see why there should be.
	Let me make it clear that there is no deal with the FBU. I would not have thought, after the last year, anyone could say that I had a cosy relationship with the FBU, and there is certainly no deal on this matter. I talked to everyone in the industry this morning about the nature of our intentions and the need for us all to begin to make changes. That is not a deal—the Government have set out their position, we will hear what is said by all the stakeholders in the industry, and we will introduce legislation in the House. I hope that that legislation will be introduced, depending on the business managers and the Queen's Speech, next year, and there could be a Bill in January, but that is not entirely in my hands.

Eric Forth: Oh!

John Prescott: Well, I do not know what that "Oh" is about. I am just telling the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) what I think is the position, but it is a matter for the House. I cannot decide when the Bill will be introduced, but I am trying to give an honest answer, not that honesty necessarily dictates the right hon. Gentleman's political position—[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] No, it is all right, he would not deny that—he himself is laughing.
	Finally, on the Fire Services Bill, which is now before the House of Lords, I would like to see that process completed by the summer, but there are difficulties with the legislative timetable, as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden knows. We hope to get the Bill into law by the summer, but certainly by September at the very latest. We are discussing that with various parties.

Edward Davey: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement. I was not aware of the new practice according to which Opposition spokesmen hand their written statements over, and I am afraid mine is not ready. However, may I take the opportunity to welcome the fact that the long and bitter fire dispute has come to an end? Given the months of argument and damaging strikes, can the Deputy Prime Minister reassure the House that the White Paper is in line with the agreed settlement, and that there is nothing in either his statement or the White Paper that would undermine the parameters of the agreement signed by the employers and the FBU? Now that the dispute is over, and given that the Deputy Prime Minister's own White Paper talks about strong arguments for restricting the right to strike, is there not a case for consulting on a limited and specific restriction on the right to strike, applicable to life-saving fire duties only? While the White Paper is largely based on the Bain review, the Deputy Prime Minister will be aware that certain parts of Bain are not in the details published today. Can he explain those omissions, and tell us why there is not more detail on new building regulations for fire sprinklers? Does he not regard that as a key part of fire prevention, which receives new emphasis in the White Paper? The White Paper talks about more research, but surely there is enough research to press ahead with those vital new proposals to save lives through fire prevention.
	On the proposed restructuring of fire authorities, can the right hon. Gentleman give the House a cast-iron guarantee that no powers will be taken from local fire authorities unless and until there are directly elected assemblies in place? No powers should be given to regional quangos. Can he say what powers will be taken down from Whitehall to any new regional authorities or to local fire authorities?
	Can the Deputy Prime Minister make clear his latest position on resources for fire authorities that have modernised already? The issue was raised by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) and has been raised repeatedly by us, but we have received no reassurance from Ministers. Can the Deputy Prime Minister say whether fire authorities that have already reaped the financial benefits of reform will be compensated for the higher costs built into the recent agreement—yes or no?
	The White Paper is not without merit, but the Deputy Prime Minister knows that the case for modernisation rests on saving more lives. That will be its true test. I hope that he will respond to proposals that could save many lives over the coming years.

John Prescott: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words of support. The proposals are designed to save lives by changing the priorities that determine risk assessment, giving higher priority to individuals than to buildings, and seeing that the rescue services are nearer to concentrations of population. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden made it clear that that is done better in Europe, and we have learned something from that, as Bain was quick to point out. We believe that we can achieve safety, efficiency and greater effectiveness, and that is the purpose of the White Paper.
	With regard to the right to strike and the hon. Gentleman's concern about omissions, I assume that he was referring to gold command. I did not say what the omissions were and I do not readily understand what he meant. Does he wish to clarify that? [Interruption.] He says that there were a number of specific omissions. Perhaps he could write to me and I will respond. I would like to be helpful, but he has not been specific so I cannot respond now.
	The White Paper is in line with the Government's proposals for the modernisation of the fire service. The industrial agreement was not just about modernisation. The Government made it clear that they intended to modernise the fire service, but the negotiations on wages, conditions and modernisation are some aspects of that, but not all. That is why we need wider consultation on the broader aspects of the fire service, not just on industrial negotiations, agreements and working conditions, which are largely determined by the council. The other matters are the concern of another body. That is why I spoke to them all this morning. We are carrying out the Government's policy in line with many of the recommendations made by Bain, and taking into account some of the responses given to the Bain recommendations. That is reflected in the White Paper published today.
	On research, there is always a great need for research, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point. We should do all we can to reduce the incidence of arson—£43 million has been put into increased research and services in that area. We should ensure that the results are more effective, but I do not underestimate the need for continuous research on these matters.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the powers of unelected regional quangos, as he called them. The regional bodies will all be unelected in the first instance, even if there are successful elections in the three northern areas, so in the course of the reorganisation we will be dealing with unelected bodies. There are certain regional aspects of the fire service that are best considered on a regional basis, sometimes because local authorities cannot afford to provide all those services, and sometimes because it makes sense for them to co-ordinate their activities.
	I have agreed with the local authorities that we will look at how we can achieve that regional co-ordination in the present circumstances, working with them. But our principle is clear: if there are elected representatives, the regional dimension should be accountable to them. I do not think the hon. Gentleman would disagree. With regard to regional co-ordination, we are discussing with the local authorities how they would make an unelected body accountable. That is a matter for further discussion.
	On the question whether fire authorities will be denied the resources that they want, there are some that have carried out modernisation. We said that we would consider compensation. It is not my first priority. There is scope for all the fire authorities to achieve greater efficiency, if they so wish. We will consider how best to achieve that and give them the proper support. Change will take place. It costs money, but the Government will face up to their responsibilities.

Andrew Bennett: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, particularly its emphasis on more co-operation within the industry. I welcome also the ratcheting up of the building regulations. I remind him that the vast majority of fires occur in old houses where the building regulations will not apply. Will he look carefully at getting the fire service to emphasise the giving of good advice, particularly to people who carry out home improvements, which sometimes dramatically improve the cosmetic appearance of their dwelling but increase the fire risk?

John Prescott: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Some fire authorities have adopted such measures recently, with some going to schools to provide education about preventing fires. That has had some effect, with Kent and one or two other authorities having success. We want to encourage more of that, and emphasise prevention rather than intervention. The balance needs to be better and we want to provide such measures. My hon. Friend makes a good suggestion on which we will build and report back later.

Bob Spink: I welcome the stated objectives of the programme of change, but does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that a number of smaller communities will, for reasons of accessibility or other special factors, need to retain fire stations, even though a so-called efficiency review could put their survival in question? Will he give an undertaking that the programme of change will not be used to put stations such as Canvey Island in Castle Point under threat?

John Prescott: The hon. Gentleman expresses a general concern. I cannot give an exact answer on his point about his area, except to say that integrated risk management is about providing the same level of safety cover for people in rural areas, dangerous areas, less dangerous areas and urban areas. That is what the White Paper is about. Local areas will decide and each has different measures. They will make the decisions and recommendations.
	In that regard, many retained firefighters work in those areas, and I answered a question from the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden on that subject. This is an important matter, about which he asked me during my last statement on the subject. There is no need for any redundancies there, either, and retained firemen can now get a fairer deal from the system than they do now. We are desperately short of retained firefighters in certain areas. We will get a better balance and they will face no more risk of compulsory redundancy than any full-time worker.

Gordon Prentice: I was interested in what my right hon. Friend had to say about risk assessment. What are the implications, if any, for high-risk areas such as nuclear power stations or airports that have dedicated fire crews attached to them?

John Prescott: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Those fire crews are separate from the fire and rescue services but have the same obligation. They will be subject to the same fire risk assessment because that affects their area. Those crews may be dealt with under a different service, but they will have the same obligation.

Elfyn Llwyd: I welcome the statement, as far as it goes, and the reference to further devolution of fire authority powers to Wales. Does that mean entirely devolving fire responsibilities, or will any be retained in this place? Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that the money provided for the cost of transfer will be sufficient, and that the Government will not apply a Barnett-type squeeze to the money? He has acknowledged honestly today that there is a cost attached to the process.

John Prescott: Being Welsh, I can say that both Wales and Scotland are always open to the opportunity of trying to get a lot more money from this House. We are transferring responsibility and the assets and, in that sense, it is not a great transfer of cost at all. There has been a demand from the Welsh Assembly that the cost should come back to the Assembly. I agree; send it back, all of it.

Dennis Skinner: rose—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Dennis Skinner: You are putting pressure on me. We have gone through a long and intermittent strike. Notwithstanding the fact that strikes are unpleasant, they do occur from time to time and the right to strike should be enshrined by any responsible Labour Government. My right hon. Friend has been asked by the Tories to get rid of the right to strike, and by the sloppy Liberal Democrats to diminish it in certain circumstances. Will he take it from me, and many others on this side—and certainly in the broad Labour and trade union movement—that we want to put in our two penn'orth and tell him, before the ink is dry: retain the right to strike?

John Prescott: Welcome back, Dennis. It is going to be a lot warmer. My hon. Friend makes a serious point, though, and one of which we both have direct experience. In one strike, the administrator took over the union as a consequence of the strike legislation. It did not solve the strike; it just made it more bitter. My personal judgment is that such legislation does not work in the way that people hope it will work. I said to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden that we would give the Government's response, and our reasons are set out in the White Paper. We all accept that there is a right to strike—that is guaranteed in our legislation—but there are circumstances in which certain unions or work forces give exemptions, in the form of no-strike deals. There are even no-strike deals that have been arrived at privately by trade unions in contracts, never mind in legislation.
	The question is whether no-strike legislation would have helped over the past 12 months. In my judgment, it would not. Under existing law, we could have acted if the Attorney-General had judged that the strike constituted a threat to the safety of the individual, but he decided at that stage that it did not, so we did not use that legal weapon. If we are to take away the right to withdraw labour, we must carefully balance what the advantages are. I see no advantage. Nobody has made the case that it solves the strike or drives workers back to work. That is why the conclusion of the White Paper is that, while we must always keep it under review, we do not want to enact anti-strike legislation.

John Randall: Many people will be relieved to hear the Deputy Prime Minister's assurance that there will be no compulsory redundancies. Has his Department made any assessment of the levels of personnel that will be needed in the new service?

John Prescott: These are all matters for the fire authorities to negotiate. I said in my statement that the fire authorities conducted their negotiations and the local authorities have agreed that there is no need for redundancies. It is not difficult to look at how many fire stations we have currently and assess how many crews will be needed and under what circumstances. For example, the FBU has said that, because of its overtime ban, 4,000 more workers are employed than would normally be. It is legitimate to ask whether that is the best and most effective way of using labour. The Government are entitled to that view. In the current discussions, and in particular those arising from the settlement, that will be one of the issues.
	We leave it to the relevant parties to make the judgment, but there is a statutory responsibility to ensure a high level of safety. If we can achieve a proper balance between intervention and prevention, we will have a higher level of safety without the need for compulsory redundancies. That is the employers' judgment, and I accept it.

George Mudie: I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister's reference to the importance of fire services being local, so I must express my worries about West Yorkshire fire service being abolished and becoming part of a regional service. We in Leeds often worry about our fire service having that local touch, and we can only fear for the worst if it disappears and is replaced by a regional service. Is this matter one for debate, and is it not a step too far in terms of local awareness?

John Prescott: I understand my hon. Friend's point about West Yorkshire. I face a difficult situation, in that there is a fire authority covering just the Isle of Wight, which makes it a very small authority, compared with the London authority, which is responsible for millions of people. West Yorkshire may reside somewhere between the two. On effective representation in the regions, I believe that certain things have to be delivered at a regional level because that is more effective, but certain authorities cannot do that. As my hon. Friend knows, some authorities are smaller than West Yorkshire's, and I have to make a judgment in this regard. However, the Government take the view that we would like to see regional government. It makes a lot of sense to strike a balance between giving regional functions to an elected regional body, and delivering service locally where it is decided, in determining risk and the allocation of resources, that it is best to do so. I am discussing with the local authorities exactly how we can achieve that.

Charles Hendry: May I welcome in particular the Deputy Prime Minister's intention to review building regulations to see how fire prevention can be improved? Is he aware of a recent answer that I received to a parliamentary question that shows that there have been no deaths whatsoever in houses equipped with water sprinklers? That compares with the many hundreds of deaths that have occurred in houses that do not have them. Will he meet Richard Kent—a constituent of mine whose two sons, one of whom was a firefighter, were both killed in a fire in their home a few months ago—and East Sussex fire brigade to discuss the vital role that water sprinklers can play? Will he give me an assurance that his review of building regulations will examine the role that sprinklers should be playing, particularly in new properties?

John Prescott: The hon. Gentleman's point is a powerful one, whether in respect of the houses and dwellings to which he refers, or of industrial buildings. We are tightening up proposals on the provision of sprinkler systems in industrial buildings, and we have begun discussions on how they might be used in households. It should be easy to provide them in new buildings, but it is much more difficult to do so in older buildings. However, we are considering all possibilities in an effort to improve the situation.

Alice Mahon: May I, too, welcome the White Paper and particularly its emphasis on prevention, which firefighters themselves mention repeatedly? Part of the Government's modernisation programme was to put the new guidelines for the emergency services out for consultation. As Halifax's MP, may I have my right hon. Friend's assurance that, under these proposals, which are presumably incorporated in the White Paper, there will be no reduction in the response to 999 calls in Halifax? We want no cuts in the emergency services.

John Prescott: There can be no question whatsoever about that. Otherwise, we would have failed in what we are setting out to achieve: the proper involvement of local people, to ensure that they get an immediate response to a concern about a safety or rescue issue. I give my assurance that that will not happen.

Patrick Mercer: In the light of the warning given by the chief of the Security Service about the inevitability of terrorist chemical and biological strikes on this country, I welcome the formal addition of anti-terrorist measures in respect of the reformed fire and rescue service. Can the Deputy Prime Minister assure us that sensible levels of equipment will be issued and that training will start without further delay?

John Prescott: Decontamination equipment has already been issued, at a cost of some £50 million. There were some slight difficulties to begin with, but, to be fair, the industry has reacted well and can now offer the necessary cover for this particularly important work.

Russell Brown: I stand four-square behind what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said about the right to strike. There is much to be welcomed in the statement of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, and I am sure that the same is true of the White Paper. Above all, I welcome his comments on some of the real problems that exist in today's service and how they should be tackled. I am thinking, in particular, of the ending of bullying and harassment, and I hope that he agrees that such behaviour has no place in today's working environment, least of all in a modern public service such as fire and rescue.

John Prescott: One surprising conclusion of the Bain report was his saying that he was particularly shocked at the incidence of harassment and bullying. Such behaviour is totally unacceptable. The odd incident has gained considerable publicity, and the White Paper makes it clear that such practices are unacceptable. We are doing everything that we possibly can to eliminate them.

David Heath: Is it the Deputy Prime Minister's intention that the Audit Commission and Her Majesty's fire service inspectorate should form a single unified inspection regime at both brigade and thematic levels? If so, and it is decided that a brigade has been poorly treated because it has already made some of his suggested improvements in efficiency, will extra resources be available if they need to be applied?

John Prescott: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, there are two separate bodies. He asks whether we are merging them into one, and we are not. [Interruption.] They are separate in the sense that they have two different functions. One is responsible for the audit of comprehensive performance, and we believe that it is important to have a rating in that respect. The inspectorate, on the other hand, will carry out the role and functions that it has constantly had—ensuring that safety standards are imposed, brought in and kept in the service. We do not envisage one body: they are two separate functions. If I have left the hon. Gentleman a little unclear, I will write to him with the precise details of how we see them working.

Harry Barnes: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the correctness of the trailer of the White Paper that was run in The Times? It said that it would mean
	"new shift patterns and more flexible working"
	and an alteration in night working, which could lead to problems given that there are more deaths from fires at night. If the public felt that the FBU pay demand was over the top, is it not important that any Government response to new developments is not seen in a similar light? It would be peculiar if new Labour were incapable of finding the central ground.

John Prescott: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is accusing me of being new Labour.

Patrick McLoughlin: Oh yes, you are.

John Prescott: I own up, I am the establishment. I have accepted that. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) keeps telling me that every day.
	As to the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), what was said in The Times is absolute rubbish. I have said that before, and I think that the journalist has apologised for it. On the question of more flexibility and the need for changes in shift policies, I have said time and again from the Dispatch Box that there will have to be modernisation and change. The overtime ban maintains the system in operation at the moment, which I do not believe to be efficient or effective. I have made that clear, so there will have to be some changes. I understand that the union has made some proposals about how to bring about changes to overtime arrangements, so the matter is under way, with the agreement of those working in the industry.
	My principal concern is to ensure that we get the best possible fire service, which is exactly what I am doing. Wage conditions were agreed between the two parties after a dispute, as my hon. Friend well knows. I hope that we can now implement the proposals in the White Paper for a modern fire and rescue service. That is what the White Paper is all about.

Peter Luff: Will the Deputy Prime Minister clarify the exact implications of moving from local control rooms organised with local knowledge to the remote, regional control rooms that he has advocated in his statement and in the White Paper? Does he really believe that the decision to call out retained firefighters in remote rural stations such as Broadway and Pebworth, right on the edge of the west midlands and south-west regions, is best taken in Birmingham? If so, he would deserve to be burnt at the stakeholder.

John Prescott: If the hon. Gentleman gets a chance to look at the White Paper—obviously he has not had enough time—he will find tables that show exactly what it costs to deliver regional services—[Interruption.] I am trying to tell the hon. Gentleman that savings can be made regionally in comparison with the present local administration. That argument does not appear only in the White Paper; it was advanced in the Bain report, which pointed out that considerable savings could be made if several services were delivered regionally.

Angela Watkinson: indicated dissent.

John Prescott: That should be simple enough even for the hon. Lady to understand. She shakes her head, but if she has any doubt, she should read the Bain report or the Fire White Paper, which she does not seem to have to hand.
	In our judgment, some services will best be provided regionally. Indeed, some fire authorities have got together to do that. Certain functions, certain equipment and certain circumstances are beyond their expenditure. Gold command is a classic example of fire forces coming together on a regional basis for major incidents. As explained in the White Paper, we believe that it can be done better and in a more balanced way at regional level.

Angela Watkinson: Can the Deputy Prime Minister give an assurance that the risk review will not lead to any lowering of fire cover in populated areas at night? The statistics show that there are fewer fires at night, but also that the proportion of fatal accidents is higher in night fires, partly because people are asleep and not aware that their house is on fire, partly because people are not out and about walking in public and so cannot raise the alarm. Response times at night are vital: another minute on a fire brigade's response time could lead to a death from a night fire.

John Prescott: The hon. Lady's analysis of why there is a higher proportion of deaths at night is correct. It is not so much the speed of response as the nature and circumstances in which people die, as she rightly points out. However quick that response was, unfortunately, people have died, so the emphasis is now on the prevention measures that can be taken. Reference was made earlier to some of the measures that have been taken in schools and communities and they can make a real difference. It is the essence of the difference between the record here and the record in Europe: the balance between intervention and prevention is not quite right.
	I give the commitment that the safety cover that the risk assessments will be giving will be the same whether it is day or night, rural or urban. That is the requirement. It may well be that we have to move facilities around in terms of the brigades and personnel more than we do at the moment, but it will be to maintain the highest levels of safety.

Henry Bellingham: Surely any regionalisation will lead to the end of Norfolk fire service as such. It will lead to station closures, job losses and we will lose a force with a clear identity and an excellent esprit de corps. May I refer the Deputy Prime Minister to page 4 of his statement, which says that there is a real problem because the service does not fully represent the communities it serves? Surely what the public want is not a service that is used for social engineering, but one that saves lives and puts out fires.

John Prescott: The hon. Gentleman may be unhappy with that but there is a need to get some balance, with fire services representing the communities in which they work. Often, it can be a language situation, which can be quite important in the fire service in particular areas. It is important to get that balance into the fire service. It is a public service and it should reflect more effectively the areas and the community—[Interruption.] I give hon. Members my judgment. We can have a difference between us. I think that there are probably many differences on that matter but I believe that to be right. As for saying that regionalisation will mean the end of that service, he gives no evidence for that and it is not true.

Speaker's Statement

Mr. Speaker: We now come to the main business and I would like to make a statement regarding the Hunting Bill programme motion manuscript amendment. A manuscript amendment was tabled to the programme motion to enable new clause 11 to be taken before Government new clause 13. I have not selected the amendment.

Hunting Bill (Programme) (No. 3)

Alun Michael: I beg to move,
	That the programme order of 16th December 2002 in relation to the Hunting Bill be varied as follows—
	1. Paragraph 4 of the order shall be omitted.
	2. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion five and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this order.
	3. Proceedings on consideration shall be taken in the following order—
	(a) New Clause 13 and any new clauses and amendments which stand to be grouped for debate with it;
	(b) New Clause 12 and any new clauses and amendments which stand to be grouped for debate with it;
	(c) Remaining proceedings.
	4. At the conclusion of proceedings on consideration, the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown to re-commit the Bill to a Standing Committee shall be put forthwith.
	The motion provides for a variation of the programme order agreed by the House on 16 December when the Bill received its Second Reading. Paragraph 2 of the motion provides that tonight's Report stage shall end five and a half hours after the beginning of this programme motion debate. I will keep my remarks very short since the longer we spend on the motion, the less time we will have for the main debate.
	Paragraph 3 of the motion provides for the order of consideration of amendments during tonight's debate. We will begin with a group covering the big issue, which is about what is to be banned. The lead amendment is new clause 13 in my name, which was tabled with the names of a number of hon. Friends. Taken with the other provisions of the Bill, it will ban all cruelty associated with hunting with dogs.
	The first group includes new clause 11, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) and others, which has been described as seeking a complete ban on fox hunting.

Patrick McLoughlin: With the timetable that the Minister is proposing, does he expect the House to have a chance to discuss all the groups of amendments before the House?

Alun Michael: Yes, it is for the House to decide how it wishes to use the time, and I am conscious that most of the big issues are in the first group of amendments. Other issues in groups of amendments that deal with largely lesser matters, or matters that are consequent on undertakings given in Committee are comparatively straightforward.
	As I have indicated, paragraph 3 of the motion provides for the order of consideration of amendments during tonight's debate. I have referred to the two lead amendments in the first group. Mr. Speaker, you would quickly call me to order if I began now to explain my reasons for recommending new clause 13 rather than new clause 11. We will have plenty of time to debate that issue. I must draw the House's attention to the fact that I have been advised this morning by the House authorities that if new clause 13 is passed, Mr. Speaker will not be able to call a vote on new clause 11. That is because the provisions of the two clauses are legally incompatible. It does not change the fact that both new clauses are available for debate and, if my hon. Friends so choose, available to be voted on. What is clear, as it always has been, is that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends face a choice between the two: the choice is still, effectively, between a Bill that is simple to explain and one that is simple to enforce.
	Paragraph 4 of the programme motion provides for the possibility of a motion to recommit the Bill to a Standing Committee at the end of the Report stage. There has been much discussion, and not a little misunderstanding, about that possibility since it was mentioned at business questions last week. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House then made clear, it is not a question of some underhand dealings by the Government to prevent the Bill from going forward, but simply a necessary precaution to ensure that the Bill goes forward and does so in a workable form.
	The House must understand that if new clause 11 were added to the Bill, the Bill would not be workable without further amendment. We must not send a defective Bill to the other place, and we would face extreme difficulty if we sought to apply the Parliament Acts to a defective piece of legislation. Recommittal is an inevitable consequence of opting for new clause 11.

Edward Garnier: If the Minister is concerned that the Bill is imperfect, and we can see from the number of Government amendments that it is, why does he not send it straight back to the Committee rather than using a day of Government time on which we could be discussing other matters?

Alun Michael: The Bill as it stands is far from imperfect. It is a very strong Bill. It deals with the issue of cruelty involved with hunting, and it does so comprehensively. The reason for the possibility of recommittal is that we are in free vote territory. Members may take decisions that leave the Bill in a state in which further amendment is necessary. That is what I have made absolutely clear.

Gerald Kaufman: Last Thursday, the Leader of the House said to me:
	"I have been advised by parliamentary counsel that the Bill may need to be recommitted for the purpose of making technical and consequential amendments, without which the Bill, as amended, may not be effective law. That amended Bill would obviously have to be debated on Report and Third Reading and, as a result, it is doubtful whether it is possible to get it into the Lords before the recess."—[Official Report, 26 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 1208.]
	I seek from the Minister precise clarification so that the House may proceed in good order in today's debate. Will he give a clear commitment that if he needs to move the recommittal motion later today, the Bill will go into Standing Committee in time for the House to complete all stages next week so that the Bill can go to the House of Lords before the recess?

Alun Michael: Obviously, there are business matters here, but my understanding is that the Bill would be dealt with before the recess, on its return from the Standing Committee. The answer to my right hon. Friend's question is therefore yes. What we would lose is the date that has been set for Second Reading in the Lords of 17 July, before the other place goes into recess, but the answer is yes.

Gerald Kaufman: It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify two things. When he says the Bill "would be dealt with", does he mean that it would complete all its stages in this House, including Third Reading? Secondly, while he says that that would make it not possible for the Bill to reach the House of Lords by the scheduled Second Reading date of 17 July, can he guarantee that, in those circumstances, it would get to the Lords for a Second Reading in time, if necessary, for the Parliament Act provisions of one month to be invoked?

Alun Michael: My understanding is that it would be the intention for the Bill to be able to complete its proceedings in this House before the recess and then to go to the Lords. As to the precise possibilities in terms of the application of the Parliament Act, my right hon. Friend is asking me to go further than my knowledge can take me, particularly because there are uncertainties about the application of the Parliament Act, which are, of course, a matter for this House. It is not the Government's intention to frustrate the speediest reaching of a conclusion on the issue. As I have made clear, if we can deal with everything tonight, and if the Bill, in the robust form that I recommend to the House, is passed by the House during its proceedings today, the debate in the House of Lords is scheduled before the recess.

Nick Palmer: Will my right hon. Friend clarify the substantive issue about the need for additional Committee proceedings? I am a co-signatory to an amendment on mink hunting and I understand that the Government feel that if foxes are exempt, it might be necessary to delete part 2 of the Bill and thus the matter would have to go back to Committee. Is that the reason? If mink hunting were not banned explicitly, but was left as an issue for registration, would that obviate the need to return to Committee?

Alun Michael: I believe not, for a number of reasons. As I understand it, there are consequentials arising from the amendments that are difficult to predict in advance. The amendments are complicated—they are a sequence of events—and we need to ensure that the Bill is in good order. As I indicated in my responses to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), we shall deal with those issues as expeditiously as possible, consequent on a recommital.

Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that you will accept that if the House is to proceed to debate the Bill in good order, the latter part of the question that I put to the Minister requires a very early answer in the course of the debate. If the Minister himself is not in a position to answer the question about the Parliament Act, may I ask that the Leader of the House or the Deputy Leader of the House come to the House early today so that the House knows exactly where it stands?

Mr. Speaker: Was the right hon. Gentleman referring to the question of one month?

Gerald Kaufman: I was referring to this, Mr. Speaker: the Minister said that if the Bill has to be recommitted and we complete the stages next week, as is scheduled, his belief is that the Bill will not be able to go to the House of Lords for the scheduled Second Reading date of 17 July. Were we to be in that circumstance, it is essential for the House, in making its decisions today, to know whether the Bill would get to the House of Lords for Second Reading in time, if need be, for the one-month requirement relating to the Parliament Act to be fulfilled. Since you, Mr. Speaker, are the custodian of the Parliament Act, it is essential that we have that information as early as possible today.

Mr. Speaker: My understanding is that it does not have to be a sitting month—it could be a non-sitting month. I hope that that will be of help to the right hon. Gentleman.

Alun Michael: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton for his forensic examination of these matters. Although he raised them on a point of order, may I explain that I am trying to make it clear to the House that it is our intention to get through business expeditiously and not to frustrate the House in its business in any way? However, I cannot speak for the House authorities where their decisions are at issue, nor can I speak about programming in another place, although I can do so in respect of 17 July as I understand that that decision is already in the public domain.
	As I have made clear, I do not deny that recommital would lead to some delay and that, in particular, the procedures that would have to be undertaken in this place could not be completed in time to allow the other place to give the Bill a Second Reading before the summer recess. That is a matter of fact. In contrast, if new clause 13 and the other Government amendments to strengthen the Bill are agreed, I can give the House a firm assurance that there will be no need for a recommital motion, so we can proceed to give the Bill a Third Reading tonight. In that case, I can also inform the House that I understand that the House of Lords will debate the Bill's Second Reading on Thursday 17 July.

Rob Marris: I understood my right hon. Friend to say—I may have misunderstood—that the Bill would need to be recommitted to the Standing Committee if new clause 13 were voted down and new clause 11 were accepted because it would otherwise be unworkable. I should be grateful to him if he could explain to the House how it would be unworkable given that part 2, which deals with registration, could still have effect in relation to hunting other wild mammals not specifically mentioned in the Bill, such as wild boar.

Alun Michael: I indicated that I was certain that Mr. Speaker would call me to order if I started to discuss the content of the amendments, but I wanted to make clear the procedure to colleagues. I am sure that we will discuss the issues that my hon. Friend raises during the substantive debate, but I promised to be as brief as I could. I tried to respond to colleagues' interventions.

Edward Garnier: rose—

Alun Michael: It looks as though I shall have to respond to one more.

Edward Garnier: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way to me a second time. He has told us what paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the motion say, but, unless I am much mistaken, he has not told us why paragraphs 2 and 3, in particular, ought to be passed.

Alun Michael: I explained why it would hardly be wise for me to start the substantive debate now, and I do not intend to do so. I have explained the processes to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I commend the motion to the House.

Peter Luff: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should be very grateful to you for your guidance on recommittal to Standing Committee. Am I right in thinking—I may be wrong—that the Standing Committee has been discharged and a new Standing Committee would have to be formed, because that would have implications for the time scale?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: At the moment, the Chair does not know the form that the recommittal motion would take, so it is impossible to answer that hypothetical question. I am sorry that I cannot be clearer than that to the hon. Gentleman.

Eric Forth: The one bright aspect of this patently miserable affair is that it demonstrates beyond all doubt the value of debating programme motions. Apart from anything else, the debate has allowed right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to seek to clarify exactly what the devil is going on. I shall leave them to conclude whether or not they have succeeded, but it certainly demonstrates that these debates are of value to the House, and I hope that hon. Members will bear that in mind when they consider successive Government proposals to restrict such occasions more and more.
	It is also obvious that the Bill is very important. Of course, all Bills are important to the House, but this Bill has particular importance because not only is it highly controversial, but it could affect very many people's livelihoods and lifestyles. As we have already heard in the exchanges on the programme motion, it contains many complex issues, but there has been no consultation. This is another case of Government fiat. It is yet another case of the Government coming to the House and saying, "We the Government are telling the House how much time it requires for this important matter. There will be no discussion, no consultation. That is it."
	Following the question asked by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), the Minister failed to explain why the Government believe that we can satisfactorily deal with this matter in the time allocated—five and a half hours in which to consider all the amendments and new clauses. By my reckoning, as we see from the selection list, there are five separate groups of amendments and new clauses—each important in their own right—more than 50 Government amendments and more than 20 other amendments, all of which, according to the Government, can be satisfactorily dealt with by the House in as little as five and a half hours. That cannot be right. Quite apart from the intrinsic importance of new clause 13, new clause 12 and new clause 10, which lead the first three groups of amendments, it could be argued that each of them could scarcely be dealt with satisfactorily in five and a half hours, never mind the whole in total.

Edward Garnier: May I tell my right hon. Friend that, in Standing Committee, we probably spent in excess of 100 hours on the Bill, yet I suggest that we did not complete a half of it? We are now being required to spend five and a half hours dealing with it on Report.

Eric Forth: Indeed. My hon. and learned Friend refers to those who were privileged to serve on the Standing Committee. The point about this part of the proceedings is to give the Members of the House who were not on the Committee an opportunity to contribute. The House, as a whole, will consider the Bill, so my hon. and learned Friend's point is even more relevant for that reason.
	There will be free votes on both sides of the House. At least, we will have a free vote; it remains to be seen what the poor, old payroll does when it comes to a vote. However, given that there will be a free vote, we are in the rather unusual position in which a number of different groups and opinions will want, quite properly, to express their views when we debate the new clauses and amendments. There are those who want a total ban, those who want a selective ban, those who think that we can live with a licensing regime and those who prefer the status quo. No doubt, there are many other views as well. How will all the groups be able to express their views in the time allocated? That is the obvious question.
	The Government are asking us to accept that groups of amendments made up of many new clauses and amendments can be dealt with properly, comprehensively, in detail and in a way that will satisfy all those outside with a legitimate and direct interest in five and a half hours.

Gerry Steinberg: Is the shadow Leader of the House aware that we have spent 120 hours debating the issue over the past few years and that the vast majority of us have discussed it until we are blue in the face? All we want to do now is vote.

Eric Forth: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman thinks that 120 hours is, in itself, sufficient. It may not be. The very fact that his right hon. and hon. Friends legitimately take a different view suggests that the issue cannot just be voted on. There are matters properly to be discussed.

Nick Palmer: I am confused. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) says that he begrudges one day being given to discuss the Bill. How many days of Government time would the shadow Leader of the House like to us to spend on the matter?

Eric Forth: I would have thought that it might not even be a matter of days. We are asking why the Government are placing an artificial restriction on the time available today to discuss the Bill. In the good old days, we would have spent enough time—into the night if necessary—to do justice to the important issues in a Bill of this kind. Why is it that the world and the House have changed so much that, given an issue of this complexity and importance, the Government have come along in their hobnailed boots and said, "You will spend only five and a half hours on the issue regardless of its complexity and importance."

Kate Hoey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the longer we have debated the issue over the years that we have spent on it, the more people in the country change their minds and now say that they do not think that a ban is necessary?

Eric Forth: The hon. Lady is correct. That is yet another reason why those people would expect their Parliament, their House of Commons and their representatives to have a say, voice their opinions and ensure that the matter is dealt with in a balanced way and as a matter of judgment.
	We face all the complications of the possible recommittal to Standing Committee. Even yet, that point has not been thoroughly explored in the time available to the programme motion. We face the time pressure on both Houses—this House and the House of Lords—and the Parliament Act is hovering behind all that. We need to tease out the implications of that.
	We have, sadly, over the past few years become used to Government diktat, but this motion must be one of the most extreme examples of the Government coming to the House and, without any consultation or negotiation, saying, "This is the time available to you—no more, no less. You will now resolve these varied and important matters in only five and a half hours." I suppose that it is too much to ask but, even at this stage, I ask the Minister to take account of the views of his Back Benchers even if he does not listen to the Opposition and to consider withdrawing the programme motion or rescinding it in some other way so that we have a proper amount of time to discuss the Bill and to do justice to the issues before us. It is a last-minute request, but I hope that I am not too late and that the Government will consider it. If not, I hope that we shall all vote against this dreadful motion. 4.44 pm

Tony Banks: I have some sympathy for the views expressed by the shadow Leader of the House. However, I also recall that when my right hon. Friend the Minister stood up to make a statement on the Bill, he was upbraided by the Opposition who asked why the Government had put that statement on before one on education. There was a murmur of agreement on the other side. When my right hon. Friend sat down, the House emptied, so whatever anyone else says, there is considerable interest in the matter. I tell the shadow Leader of the House that if my right hon. Friend had proposed two days or more of discussion, I am sure that many Opposition Members would have said, "Haven't we more important things to debate?". This is an argument that the Government and the Opposition cannot win. We should, perhaps, be grateful for the small mercies that the Government have extended.
	I am not at all happy with the motion. According to my mathematics, the number 11 normally comes before 13—apparently not if the Government deem it otherwise. Many people outside the House, and a number inside, think that the programme motion is a procedural device to prevent a vote on a total ban. We did not have the chance to table a manuscript amendment to reverse the order of consideration, so if new clause 13 is agreed, it will trump new clause 11, which would mean that we may not vote on a total ban.
	There was a lot of speculation in the press over the weekend. In The Sunday Times, Mr. Eben Black—a man who is not noted for his accuracy of reporting—said that new clause 11, which was ascribed to me, was a late intervention. That is not so, because the total ban amendment was drafted and ready by the end of the Committee stage on 27 February. The Government's programme motion was a late intervention, because we received notice of it only towards the latter end of last week.
	We could have tabled an amendment to introduce a total ban on fox hunting in Committee, but the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs herself explicitly and forcefully asked us not to do so—she can be very forceful. The language that she used quite shocked some of the more timorous members of the Committee. She said, "We do not want the amendment to be put before the Committee because we need wider consultation in the House to get a wider spread of opinion, so please"—I do not actually think that the word "please" came into it—"do not table it." We agreed, which is why the amendment was not tabled in Committee.
	We agreed not to table the amendment because we said that we thought that it was reasonable to have a wider debate and vote on a total ban, but under the programme motion, if new clause 13 is accepted, we will not have a vote on new clause 11, which would introduce a total ban. We were told that there would be difficulties with new clause 11, although we shall discuss those in a minute. Quite frankly, I do not believe that the difficulties are there unless the Government want them to be.

Ann Widdecombe: rose—

Tony Banks: I give way to my right hon. Friend—on this matter.

Ann Widdecombe: I am grateful to my hon. and strictly temporary Friend. Does he agree that the Prime Minister gave us not one but several undertakings that Parliament would indeed have the opportunity to vote on a total ban? If we do not have the opportunity to vote on new clause 11, does he agree that those undertakings will have been breached and, to put it in the vernacular, that the Prime Minister would have ratted?

Tony Banks: I would not necessary use those precise words. The situation would certainly lead to a reasonably justifiable case being made for bad faith on the Government's part because, frankly, if there were real or imagined difficulties with new clause 11, they could have been resolved in Committee. I have already explained why we did not debate a total ban in Committee.

Alun Michael: I do not always recognise the way in which things are described. For example, I do not recall many members of the Committee being especially timorous, and I recall my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State using the word "please" with some emphasis. There is an opportunity to vote on my hon. Friend's new clause. As it happens, the way in which the process works means that that would involve voting down new clause 13—we have, effectively, a choice between the two. I accept that entirely. I hope to persuade the House to support new clause 13, because I believe passionately that it is right. However, new clause 11 is before the House for debate and can be voted on, if that is agreed by hon. Members.

Tony Banks: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's emphasis on "please" coincided with our heads being drummed against the table. Under the circumstances, I think I have made it clear that her plea to us was forcible, and that we saw the strength of her argument and, indeed, the strength of her arm.
	The point I am making to my right hon. Friend the Minister, whom I absolve from any accusation of bad faith, is this: if the programme motion referred to new clause 11 and then new clause 13, I would understand it. What the Government are forcing us to do, however, is to vote against Government new clause 13 and to vote for new clause 11, which is what I recommend everyone who wants a total ban to do. I regret that we will have to do that, but that is the result of this bad programme motion which, by the end of the evening, could mean that the Government snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. What would have been a very good news day will turn into a defeat for the good faith of the Government and for the fate of foxes as well.

Andrew George: When we debate a programme motion, it is right to recognise that it takes time from the five and half hours of the main debate, if the motion is agreed to. That is why I intend to be brief.
	Given the intervention of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and others in the debate so far, it is important that we get clear advice on the implications of voting on amendments in the first group. Such advice has not yet been made available. I am uncomfortable about voting on new clause 13 before new clause 11. The unclear advice contains the implicit blackmail that if we go along with new clause 13—I am not judging which way we should vote—the Bill will get a safe, efficient and quick passage to another place, but if the House votes down new clause 13 and favours new clause 11, that will result in an unwelcome detainment of the Bill and recommittal to the Standing Committee. Having served more than 100 hours on the Standing Committee, I do not particularly want to go back to it. The experience of verbal wallpaper for days on end is not something that I want to go through again, especially on this issue.
	There is clear concern on both sides of the House that we should receive further advice. Perhaps the Leader of the House could give us that clear advice after the vote on the programme motion and before we debate the first group of amendments so that we fully understand the implications of going down one route or another. Many hon. Members have not made up their minds and feel under pressure as to whether they should vote for new clause 13 or new clause 11. They want the matter done and dealt with as quickly as possible. The House has spent far too much time on it already, but we want to ensure that we complete the job and complete it well.

Gerald Kaufman: I shall not follow my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) into discussing whether the Government have acted in bad faith. That is a matter I reserve for discussion at the next meeting of the parliamentary Labour party. I want to clarify absolutely the position that will result from the programme motion and if the House decides to defeat new clause 13 and accept new clause 11.
	Last week, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, in what I believe was absolute good faith, said in response to a question from me that if certain amendments were carried—he undoubtedly had in mind new clause 11—consequential amendments would be required and the Bill would be unable to complete its passage before the recess, and that would certainly have implications for the invocation of the Parliament Act, if it were needed.
	The Minister can contradict me in what I am about to posit if I am wrong, but if he does not contradict me, I will take it that I am right. If we accept new clause 11 this evening and, as a result, consequential amendments are required and the Government accept the Minister's motion to recommit the Bill to the Standing Committee, the timetable that has been described this afternoon means that the Bill will have a swift passage through the reconvened Standing Committee and complete its passage through the House next Wednesday.
	That means that, as Mr. Speaker has clarified, although the Bill cannot have its Second Reading in the House of Lords by the scheduled date of 17 July, it will be referred back to the House of Lords for a Second Reading, presumably in September. If new clause 11 is accepted and the House of Lords obstructs the Bill, the Parliament Act can nevertheless be invoked in this Session, which means that the Bill can become law at the beginning of the next Session.
	If the Minister agrees with that, I will welcome his saying so. I see that the Clerk is giving you advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the Minister disagrees with me, that will create a situation that is unacceptable to many Members of the House.

Alun Michael: As ever, my right hon. Friend sought to set out very clearly his understanding of the whole process. The problem is that it is an extremely complicated set of propositions to say yes or no to, particularly because some of them depend on what happens in another place and some depend on the processes and decisions of this House, and I am not qualified to rule on those. I heard nothing in what my right hon. Friend said that I want to disagree with or challenge, but I am not sure that I can say yes to his entire series of propositions with the clarity that he seeks.

Gerald Kaufman: Two matters pertain here. First, the Minister ought to have briefed himself on this question because he knew that I would raise it. I have had discussions with senior members of the Government over the weekend, and the Minister ought to have been well aware that this matter required clarification from the Front Bench.
	Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, whom I do not accuse of acting with a scintilla of bad faith, reiterated when I asked him last Thursday that he stood by the two commitments given to me by the Minister that if the Bill emerged from this place with new clause 11 and the House of Lords obstructed it, the Government would use the Parliament Act. I do not regard that as convoluted; it is pretty straightforward. If the Minister cannot clarify that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps you will help us, since the Clerk has been advising you.

Alun Michael: That is certainly a simpler set of propositions than my right hon. Friend previously put forward. I stand by what I said in my statement on 21 March, and there should be no doubt about that. Secondly, I have given my right hon. Friend the assurance he sought that the intention, if the Bill is recommitted tonight, is that it will return to Standing Committee and complete all its stages in this House before the recess. That will allow other consequences, which are outside my hands, to follow. I do not disagree with my right hon. Friend's analysis.

Gerald Kaufman: Unless you have further clarification, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Eric Martlew: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?

Gerald Kaufman: Of course.

Eric Martlew: It is obvious that the Government are in something of a mess at the present time—[Hon. Members: "No!"] Does my right hon. Friend agree that the way forward would be for the Government not to move new clause 13?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Gerald Kaufman: That would be a way forward of a brilliance that I expect from my hon. Friend. Whether I can expect such brilliance from Ministers, we shall see.

Peter Luff: It seems to me that our debate so far has been more about the Government's intentions, the Parliament Act and some of the internal problems of the parliamentary Labour party than about the programme motion itself. I wish to make one simple point about that motion.
	We completed Committee stage—I think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) was wrong: we did complete consideration of the Bill during the time available—on, if memory serves, 27 February.

Edward Garnier: Of course we completed consideration of the Bill, but that was a fiction. We reported back to the House, or at least we attempted to. However, I cannot say that we considered every clause of the Bill or every amendment that was tabled.

Peter Luff: I think we probably did, but never mind. The fact is that we completed our consideration on 27 February and the Government have had the Bill for the whole of March, April, May and June, yet after all the time spent in the Standing Committee—estimates differ: some say 70 hours, some 100, but it was certainly an awful lot of hours—we are now being given about four and a half hours in practice to consider the Bill on the Floor of the House.
	That is unacceptably short, on two grounds in particular. First, there is new evidence in relation to the utility test: the study by the university of Kent. The House should have the opportunity to consider that new evidence on biodiversity. Secondly, there is new evidence from the middle way group on the effects of shooting foxes, which the House should also have a decent amount of time to consider. Four or so hours is simply not good enough.
	I have a practical suggestion—sadly, the Government Whip whose business this is is not in his place to hear it. My suggestion is that the Government abandon the programme motion and lift the 10 o'clock rule and instead go for closure on each group of amendments. It would not take for ever—[Laughter.] Labour Members laugh, but I imagine that the Chair would take a very dim view of any attempt to filibuster during debate on the individual groups. Let us do this properly and give the House time for consideration. The first group of amendments is the biggest and the busiest and it is my guess that that group will take most of the time available to the House for Report stage. As we go down the selection list, the groups become less and less time consuming, and I am sure that in the spirit of good will the House would give each the serious consideration it deserves. Lift the 10 o'clock rule.

Lembit �pik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) were sincere in what they said, they should consider voting against the programme motion, as it would be incongruous if they supported a programme motion that they oppose? Secondly, does he agree that there are some important amendments relating to welfare, such as amendment No. 22, and that if the hon. Member for West Ham and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton were to go along with the programme motion, it would indicate that they do not really care what happens to a few orphaned cubs?

Peter Luff: I entirely agree that the effect of voting for the programme motion would be to deny debate on such subjects. I am sure that the House would respond reasonably to being given a reasonable amount of time for debate. We should resist the programme motion.

Edward Garnier: I shall be brief, because I have to be.
	I am disappointed by the Minister's interventions this afternoon. I am disappointed that the Leader of the House, who played such an interesting part in the debate last Thursday, is not here to explain the Government's case for the programme motion.

Eric Forth: He is probably in Wales.

Edward Garnier: I dare say he is.
	The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality did not explain why we should pass paragraphs 2 and 3 of the motion, still less did he condescend to explain why paragraph 4 should be voted through. No such recommittal to a Standing Committee has been proposed in the 10 years in which I have been an MP

Ann Widdecombe: Never, certainly not in the past 16 years.

Edward Garnier: I thank my right hon. Friend. I think that we should be given a little more than the remaining time that the programme motion allows to discuss such an unprecedented, or almost unprecedented, procedural measure.
	The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) said that any discussion of the programme motion takes time out of the debate on the substantive issues, but it is a pretty facile argument when we are faced with such a great array of amendments and new clauses to complain that it is contrary to democracy to take a mere 45 minutes to discuss whether we should be allowed to discuss anything. The Government should be ashamed of themselves. Last autumn, the Minister said that he wanted to see the legislation stand the test of time, but he will not allow us the time to check the Bill.

Ann Widdecombe: To call the programme motion a Horlicks is to be profoundly unfair to the nightcap of that name. The motion and the recommittal proposition are merely another means of delay and another means of not delivering on something that was promised before 1997. It is the latest procedural shenanigan.
	We were told that Parliament would have an opportunity on a free vote to decide whether it wanted a ban. We were told also that if it decided that it wanted a ban, appropriate legislation would be brought forward. Parliament decided that it wanted a ban early in the previous Parliament. We then had to have a long-winded commission. We did not have a Bill until it was obvious that we were right up against the end of the Parliament, and that no Bill would be able to complete its passage through both Houses, given that there was bound to be a difference of opinion between the Houses.
	We were promised exactly the same againI can hardly believe that the electorate was so gulliblebefore 2001. We were told that if we had a vote, time would be made to make it possible to introduce a complete ban. Through a long series of delays we have arrived at the stage where we are facing the possibility of a complete ban. All the Government can do is get themselves into such a muddle that we have to have the further delay of recommittal if a vote for that ban goes through. It is not necessary to get into such a mess.
	I have seen successive Governments cope with highly complex Bills where free votes were involved, without having to resort to recommittal. It is

It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002].
	The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 161.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day

Hunting Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 13
	  
	Registered Hunting: Absolute Bans: Deer, Hares, Foxes and Terrierwork

'(1) Registration for the purpose of pest control shall not be effected under Part 2 in respect of the hunting of
	(a) deer of any species, or
	(b) hares.
	(2) Registration for the purpose of pest control shall not be effected under Part 2 in respect of any hunting of foxes which takes place
	(a) on or after 1st August of a year, and
	(b) before 1st November of that year.
	(3) Registration for the purpose of pest control shall not be effected under Part 2 in respect of any hunting that involves the use of a dog below ground.
	(4) Subject to subsections (1) to (3), registration may be effected under Part 2 in respect of the hunting of foxes, mink and other species of wild mammal (but only where the pest control tests of utility and least suffering are satisfied in accordance with sections 10, 19 and 21).'.[Alun Michael.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Alun Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 6Use of dogs below ground (No. 2)
	'(1) Registration under Part 2 may be effected in respect of hunting that involves the use of a dog below ground.
	(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the recognition of any existing body as the proper authority for making a code in respect of the conduct of any activity in connection with the use of dogs below ground on wild mammals.'.
	New clause 11Foxes
	'Registration under Part 2 shall not be effected in respect of the hunting of foxes.'.
	New clause 14Registration in respect of hunting of mink
	'Registration under Part 2 shall not be effected in respect of the hunting of mink.'.
	Government amendments Nos. 43, 44, 1, 85 and 100.

Alun Michael: I believe passionately that this Bill is a good, strong and effective piece of proposed legislation already, and that it will be further strengthened by the addition of new clause 13, which consolidates a number of amendments made in Committee and meets undertakings given to members of the Standing Committee, particularly my hon. Friends.
	The Bill will ensure that all cruelty associated with hunting with dogs will be banned: no doubts, no compromise, no uncertainty, no delay; a ban on the cruelty and sport of hunting in the lifetime of this Parliament. A great deal of comment about the Bill has been wrong in fact and wrong in terms of what the Bill will deliver. Let us be clearthe Bill will ban cruelty. How? It will ban the sport of fox hunting. It will ban cubbing, provided that new clause 13 is added. It will ban terrier work associated with hunts. It will ban deer hunting. It will ban hare hunting. It will ban mink hunting for sport. It will ban hare coursing events.

James Gray: Will the Minister give way?

Alun Michael: In one moment. In addition, the Bill will only allow the hunting of foxes and mink in exceptional circumstances, for pest control and only when alternative methods can be shown to cause significantly more suffering.

James Gray: I want swiftly to pick up the Minister on a point that he mentioned. He said that the new clause would ban terrier work associated with hunting. He may be incorrect. I think that he will find that the new clause would ban all terrier work. He has previously said that he intends to table amendments in another place to allow terrier work and to allow dogs controlled by gamekeepers to go underground. How will the Minister differentiate between hunts and gamekeepers?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman knows that I undertook to table an amendment on that in another place. He was wrong to suggest that I said that new clause 13 would do all of the things that I enumerated. I explained what the Bill would do and I have suggested what the Bill would do in addition to that, provided that new clause 13 is supported.

Edward Garnier: At the Portcullis House hearings, which the Minister very kindly arranged, there were three days of evidence that, presumably, informed the drafting of the Bill that was presented to the House before Christmas. Subsequently, the Bill has been changed by Back-Bench amendments in Committee. The Minister now seems to be presenting a new clause that has very little to do with the evidence that we heard in Portcullis House. Will he explain the context of new clause 13 in terms of the Portcullis hearings, where he listened to a certain amount of evidence?

Alun Michael: The Bill is consistent with what we heard in Portcullis House, as well as with the Burns report. There was also considerable debate in Committee. That is what a Standing Committee is for. There was engaged debate involving many of my hon. Friends, and many people outside the Committee took an interest in our proceedings. As a result, amendments have been tabled that strengthen the Bill.

Kevin Hughes: My right hon. Friend said that new clause 13 would strengthen the Bill. What is different in the new clause from what is already contained in clauses 6, 7 and 9, which he intends to remove? Could it not be construed that the reason for putting everything into one new clause was to configure the programme motion in a way that creates difficulties for the rest of our proceedings?

Alun Michael: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to explain. New clause 13 has been around in draft form for some time. It is designed to consolidate and tidy up some amendments made in Committee. He is right to point out that it consolidates a number of provisions that were already in the Bill, in order to tidy it up. The main difference is the specific issue of cubbing, which is dealt with by the new clause.

Gerald Kaufman: My right hon. Friend could have proposed the changes as amendments. He has shown some faulty understanding of procedure this afternoon, but he knows that new clauses come before amendments on Report, which is why he has chosen to use a new clause and shoehorn it ahead of new clause 11. He has done that deliberately, in order to pre-empt a proper decision by this House.

Alun Michael: My right hon. Friend is wrong. He is right about the order in which we consider matters, but he is wrong about the intention. I subscribed to new clause 13 to show Government support and ensure that it was protected, and that was before any question of selection was raised. I understand the point that he makes. I would have thought that the order would be to vote on new clause 13, then new clause 11, and then a consequential amendment relating to new clause 6. However, that is not the ruling, and obviously I accept the ruling on how we must vote. He will be aware that if new clause 13 is voted down, new clause 11 will be voted on and we will proceed accordingly. It is also the case that even without new clause 13 or new clause 11 we have an extremely powerful piece of legislation. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to focus on the strength of the Bill and the small size of the differences between us in relation to new clauses 13 and 11 and the Bill as already amended in Committee, not to mention amendments that we will reach later to honour undertakings given in Committee.

Kevin Hughes: It is not a question of selection by the Speaker: it is a deliberate selection by the way in which my right hon. Friend has worded the programme motion. The Speaker has no alternative but to call new clause 13 before new clause 11, because that is what it says in the programme motion.

Alun Michael: Let me explain to my hon. Friend that the programme motion follows the order that would have been laid down even without it, because new clause 13, having been subscribed to by the Governmentwhich I did to keep faith with colleagues who had asked for that element of amendmentmust take precedence. All we did was to consolidate that in the programme motion.
	I understand why those hon. Friends who see conspiracy are concerned, but I can say with my hand on my heart that that was not the intention[Interruption.] No, it is simply the effect of reflecting in the programme motion the way in which the voting would have gone anyway. As I have said, the opportunity exists for Members who choose to go in a particular direction to do so.

Edward Garnier: At the outset of our deliberations before Christmas, the Minister said that there was a golden thread running through this legislation. When did he last see that golden thread?

Alun Michael: I see it very clearly in a Bill that bans the cruelty associated with hunting in all its forms. I have just pointed out the Bill's strengths. It will make good law because it will be enforceable, and it will deal in proper form with the mischiefs that Members have debated year after year. It is, as The Guardian said, tough but fair.
	Having emerged from Committee the Bill is very tough, but it is still fair, and that is surely the best way to create legislation. That is why I seek to persuade hon. Friends to join me in supporting the Billso that we can enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on this issue.

Nicholas Soames: I am very grateful. Does the Minister recall the extensive debates that we shared in Committee, and the strong views that were expressed to him by the National Gamekeepers Organisation, during consultation in Portcullis House, on the importance of the use of terriers in the conduct of its members' work? In the light of new clause 13, has he considered further those discussions and the very powerful evidence put to him by the NGO as to why it is essential to allow its members to use terriers in the conduct of their work?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman will recall the assurances that I gave to him and to my hon. Friends in Committee. Those assurances still stand, and indeed, we promised that we would look at this issue because there is a manifesto undertaking not to interfere with the sport of shooting. We will examine and deal with those concerns, and amendments will be tabled in another place in order to fulfil that undertaking. I certainly recall the hours that the hon. Gentleman and I spent in Committeethe longest Committee stage that any Bill on hunting has been given.
	Many of the issues that we are going to deal with today were debated in Committee at considerable lengtha fact that I recall because I was present for all of those proceedings.

Angela Browning: The Minister mentioned the banning of mink hunting, but alluded to the need for some control on the ground of pest control. Exactly what will those methods be? Will they involve trapping and shooting, or will he advocate other methods?

Alun Michael: Various methods are already used for dealing with mink, including a variety of forms of trapping, and those options are available. The only situation in which mink hunting would be allowed under the Billin other words, in terms of hunting with dogsis where it could be shown that those various methods were more cruel and involved more suffering than the particular option for which an applicant came forward. I make this point strongly: the Bill will allow the hunting of foxes or mink only for pest control, and only when it can be shown that alternative methods cause significantly greater suffering. That is what the registration system in part 2 is for; without it, we would condemn some foxes to a death more cruel than that involving the use of dogs.

Lembit �pik: I am grateful to the Minister. Nevertheless, under the terms of new clause 13(2)(a) and (b), hunting with dogs will be banned completely from 1 August to 1 November. What data can he offer the House to show that the methods that will replace hunting with dogs will not increase the suffering of the hunted animal?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman, who was a member of the Committee, will recall the discussions that we had on this and a variety of other issues. Many Members of this House hold the strong view that cubbing is one of the most unacceptable of practices. I accepted the sense of an amendment moved by one of my hon. Friends, which is consolidated in this provision to ensure that that activity cannot take place. During the period in question, there is a consequent effect on activities other than direct cubbing. However, this appears to be the best available instrument for dealing with an issue that Members of this House made it very clear they wanted to deal with, and it is the right way to approach this issue.

Mike Hancock: If the Minister wants to achieve what he said at the beginning of his speech and eradicate cruelty once and for all, does he agree that the only way to achieve that is to pass new clause 11, or does he believe that registration will be so impossible to achieve by any hunt that hunting will be banned by that means, thus ending the cruelty about which he speaks?

Alun Michael: If the hon. Gentleman had studied the Bill, as amended in Committee, he would know that it was strengthened considerably and that the hurdles are very high. It is open to people to show first, that the activity is necessary, and secondly, that the alternatives in the circumstances for which the application is made would be more cruel. I am not going to get involved in the decisions that will be for the registrar and the tribunal to take. However, John Bryant, of Protect Our Wild Animals, estimated that the number of foxes killed by pest control under the Bill's requirements might be in the order of 100 in comparison with about 80,000 now. The point to remember is that, whatever that number may be, the animals would otherwise be killed by a more cruel method. That is the point of the Bill and the analysis on which it depends.

Simon Thomas: I supported the original Bill because I wanted the twin principles of utility and cruelty brought into play. Will the Minister say more about new clause 13? He should know that in Wales one third of the fox cull is by terrier work, and that about 40 per cent. of the cull occurs during the period in which he wants to ban fox hunting with hounds. Clearly, the principle of utility is not being played in new clause 13. What additional facts and evidence does the Minister have to show that killing foxes during that period in that way is additionally cruel? Would it not be better to leave those matters to the registration officer?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that many problems are dealt with by using dogs to flush out the foxes and then shooting them, rather than by the requirements of the Bill. Various options exist. For example, lamping is available in a variety of circumstances. What the Bill provides is a series of stringent conditions that have to be satisfied in order for any activity that can be registered to take place. That is fair, reasonable and extremely tough and challenging for those who wish to make their case. That is the structure of the Bill.

James Gray: I fear that the Minister may have inadvertently misled the House a moment ago. He suggested that using dogs to flush foxes to waiting guns would still be allowed under the Bill. Does he agree that that is incorrect?

Alun Michael: If the hon. Gentleman looked at the exceptions, he would find that control over the number of dogs that can be used is important, but he needs to restudy the Bill.
	The Bill will also provide effective tools for stopping illegal hare coursingsomething that is already illegal, but which existing law has proved unable to tackle. That is an important pointsomething that is currently illegal continues to take place. One of the most important points that I want to make to the House is that we need to pass legislation that is not just an aspiration, but actually works and prevents activities that are recognised as cruelor cause unnecessary sufferingfrom taking place. The Bill will prove effective in dealing with illegal hare coursing and the other activities that it is intended to control.

James Paice: I represent a constituency that has suffered from the scourge of illegal coursing for many years, but can the Minister tell us where the extra police officers to act against illegal coursing under the Bill will come from, when they are not there to act against illegal coursing at present?

Alun Michael: When the hon. Gentleman discusses the matter with the police in his constituency he will find out that part of the problem is that the police do not have the tools to do the job. They have to prove trespass[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the finances available to the police in rural areas have increased as a result of the Government's actions. When I was a Home Office Minister, I commissioned the research that led to the additional moneys becoming availableand that is quite apart from the general increase in finances available to the police. Presently, if the police find a group of people involved in illegal hare coursing, what can they do? They have to collect evidence of trespass. They can challenge people, who can respond by saying that they have permission. People can be intimidated. I am sure that, if the hon. Gentleman is having that problem in his constituency, he knows how difficult it is to police that activity.
	With this Bill, the police will have the power immediately to say, Are you registered for that activity? If you are not or if you are undertaking hare coursing, you are done. There will be the capacity to impose a level five fine, to confiscate animals and to confiscate equipment. It will be extremely effective in dealing with the current mischief of illegal hare coursing.

Several hon. Members: rose

Alun Michael: I give way to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown)

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: When we started out on the hearings in Portcullis House, the right hon. Gentleman assured all those present that the Bill would be drafted on the basis of cruelty and utility tests and on the basis of proper scientific knowledge. Can he therefore now give us a clear answer? What is the scientific basis for banning autumn hunting? If he cannot give us that basis, we will have to conclude that he is merely pandering to the wishes of those behind him, which is what we have suspected all along.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is pandering to the prejudices of those in front of him. He should look at the Burns report, the evidence in that report and the three days of hearings at Portcullis House. He will see the evidence that was available and on which judgments were made before the Bill was introduced in the House and studied in Committee over a period of weeks.

Rob Marris: I noted with interest the arguments that my right hon. Friend used in terms of the enforceability of the ban on hare coursing and how the Bill would make it easier for the police. Could not the same arguments be used as to the easier enforceability of a complete ban on fox hunting as envisaged in new clause 11?

Alun Michael: I thank my hon. Friend for his interesting question. I think that he knows that my answer to that is no. The difference between our measure and new clause 11, as I have indicated, is comparatively small but our measurebecause of the variety of circumstances that exist in relation to hunting with dogs, as was indicated by the Burns reportallows those who have a genuine case that meets the cruelty test to make that case. That does not apply in relation to hare coursing. The coursing can never satisfy the utility test because it is for the purpose of comparing the speed of two animals, not for the purpose of pest control in any sense. It fails and that is why that decision is absolute.

Andrew George: I would have thought that the Minister would agree that the pinch point between new clause 11 and new clause 13 is the area in which the Minister has identified circumstances in which hunting would become registered. He has given an example from Protect Our Wild Animals, saying that perhaps only 100 foxes would be killed by a hunt, but having considered the issue thoroughly himself he must know that there are circumstances in which hunts will be able to jump both hurdles of utility and least suffering. If he is not able to do that, surely he needs to accept the fact that it would be far easier and less legally complex to go for an outright ban.

Alun Michael: I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have seen the implications of an outright ban, for example, in Scotland. Again, the Scottish legislation is theoretically clear, but in practice the collection of evidence and the time that has to be taken in order to bring a prosecution means that there is a big gap between legislation being passed, in that case by the Scottish Parliament, and it actually taking effect in stopping the activity. I am interested in stopping that activity, which is cruel. I am about preventing that activity, rather than just voting in such a way as to appear to have that effect.

Kate Hoey: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Alun Michael: Let me make this point and then I will certainly give way to my hon. Friend.
	The Bill is no different in one sense from previous attempts at legislation, including the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) and the Deadline 2000 Bill. Each was a ban with exceptions to allow for essential pest control. This Bill, as the animal welfare organisations acknowledge, is tougher and more enforceable than anything that has come before Parliament, as well as being clear and fair.

Kate Hoey: My right hon. Friend mentioned that he would be looking at amendments to secure the work of gamekeepers and terrier work. Can he explain and tell me whether he will include anyone other than gamekeepers? What is the difference between a gamekeeper using terriers to go underground and farmers using terriers to go underground?

Alun Michael: The very clear commitment that I gave in Committee was that I would look at the position of gamekeepers in relation to the sport of shooting, and that is what I shall do

John Bercow: That does not answer the question.

Alun Michael: Oh, but it does. The hon. Gentleman bounces around in his sedentary position. I have answered the question. It is specifically in relation to gamekeepers

John Bercow: Will the Minister give way?

Alun Michael: I will, happily.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister, whose capacity for abuse is considerably greater than his capacity for reasoned argument. Will he seek to answer the specific question put to him? It was not about what he did or did not say by way of an undertaking in Committee, but what is the difference, intellectually or philosophically, between two things. That was the question; let us have an answer instead of the down-market, substandard musical hall abuse in which the right hon. Gentleman specialises.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Alun Michael: Well, was not that a really intelligent intervention? The hon. Gentleman is not interested in undertakings given to the Committee, but the House is usually interested in such undertakings being kept. He is not interested in a manifesto commitment; I am. I have made absolutely clear the answer to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey): yes, there is a difference in relation to the position of gamekeepers, to our manifesto commitment on shooting, and to the situation of activities in relation to the sport of hunting.

Hugo Swire: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for saying that he will revisit the problem concerning gamekeepers, particularly given that the Labour manifesto specifically said that the Government had no intention of placing restrictions on the sports of angling and shooting. That said, those matters were raised during the three days of hearings at Portcullis House, in the Burns report and frequently during almost 200 hours of Standing Committee deliberations. If the Minister intends to address the problem, why is he not doing it now? Why should we have to take it in good faith that he will return to it later or that the matter will be addressed in another place? That simply is not good enough. He should address these questions now.

Alun Michael: I have made it clear, as the hon. Gentleman would know if he looked back at the undertakings given, that the point depended on those involved with shooting providing a clear code of conduct that would bear down acceptably on unacceptable practice. We have had discussions with the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, and I understand that it will come forward with a code

Hugo Swire: indicated dissent.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman does not understand and does not want an answer. The commitment will be kept and, as promised in Committee, an amendment will come forward in another place. What we are dealing with now is the Government's new clause, which will, if it and others are accepted, ban all fox hunting from 1 August to 1 November every year to stop the practice of fox cubbing, prevent prolonged and unnecessary chasing, require dogs to be kept under close control, create new offences, and close possible loopholes to avoid the possibility of abuse. Those changes meet the final concerns expressed by leading animal welfare groups about the Bill, as amended in Committee.

Gregory Barker: Will the Minister give way?

Alun Michael: I must make a little progress, but then I will.
	I remind the House of the extent to which the Bill was strengthened in Committee by amendments. Jackie Ballard, director general of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, has said that with such improvements, it would be able to say that the Bill ends the cruel sport of fox hunting. Unlike the Scottish Act, the Hunting Bill will bite, and bite quickly. Although the Scottish Act sought to ban hunting with dogs outright, it will take years of accumulated case law before the legislation can effectively prevent it. I reinforce that point to my hon. Friends.

Mark Tami: I am pleased to hear my right hon. Friend bring up what Jackie Ballard has said. She also said:
	It is the RSPCA's view that both these amendments will, if passed, ban the cruel sport of hunting. However, Tony Banks's amendment, if it becomes law, will give us all that we have campaigned for.

Alun Michael: I think that my hon. Friend will find that animal welfare organisations, particularly the RSPCA, have recognised the strength of the Bill with the amendments before us today. My hon. Friend is, I think, referring to the February letter.

Gregory Barker: Will the Minister give way?

Alun Michael: All right. The hon. Gentleman has tried hard.

Gregory Barker: I thank the Minister for giving way, finally. It is clear from what he has said, and from his singular failure to marshal any scientific, clinical or veterinary evidence in support of any of his clauses, that the Portcullis House hearings were nothing more than a cunning dupe funded at the expense of the taxpayer. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) was a little unfair in saying that the Minister was simply pandering to his Back Benches; in fact, he is also pandering to the animal rights extremists who bunged the Labour party 1 million. Will he now declare that interest?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind all hon. Members that good temper and moderation are the hallmarks of parliamentary debate.

Alun Michael: It is entirely proper to listen to an organisation that exists to prevent cruelty to animals and I remind the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) that it said that it could live with the Bill that the Government have brought forward.
	I shall briefly restate the underlying principles of the Bill, which new clause 13 will strengthen. The underlying purpose of the Bill is to ban all cruelty associated with hunting with dogs. The well-established definition of cruelty is causing of unnecessary suffering. The Bill is based on the principle that unnecessary suffering must be prevented but that necessary pest control must be permitted for the well-being of the countryside and, indeed, of all of us. No one, on either side of the House, could seriously disagree with those principles.
	Where hon. Members disagree so widely is on their view

John Gummer: As the right hon. Gentleman has returned to pest control and as, in the Standing Committee debatesalthough not laterhe referred to the moral questions involved, will he explain the moral difference between a gamekeeper using terriers and a farmer using terriers?

Alun Michael: The right hon. Gentleman will understand that we are addressing issues associated with hunting. That is what the Bill deals with and that is what the House has sought to deal with year after year after year after year. I have tried to meet the requirements of the House by bringing forward a Bill that sets out clear principles that relate to the activity of hunting. It was because of the disagreements

Edward Garnier: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The long title of the Bill states
	make provision about hunting wild mammals with dogs.
	It is not a debating point but inaccurate reporting of what the Bill is about for the Minister to say in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) that we are only talking about the subject that Ministers would like to talk about. Is it in order, Madam Deputy Speaker, for a Minister to misunderstand the nature of the Bill that he is supposed to be taking through the House and for him entirely to misunderstand the question and, therefore, seek to avoid it?

Madam Deputy Speaker: In answering that point of order, I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that we are currently discussing new clause 13, which does relate to that subject.

Alun Michael: It is also true that the Bill is about hunting with dogs and that is the issue that I am trying to address, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	The tests that have been set out look at, first, whether any purpose of the proposed activity with dogs is necessary for pest control and, secondly, whether the use of dogs will cause significantly less suffering than the alternative methods of pest control. The tests are sequential; both must be passed for the activity to continue. That is how the tests ensure that all unnecessary suffering associated with hunting with dogs will be prevented.

Mark Tami: When I intervened earlier, the Minister made a statement regarding the dating of a letter. I can confirm that the letter was dated 27 June.

Alun Michael: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that I understand, as recently as this weekend, that the organisation can live with the Bill as it has been brought forward, with the amendments in Committee.
	Of course, there is a choice for hon. Members between two new clausesbetween, in effect, what it is easy to term as a so-called complete ban and a complete ban on cruelty that is effective and will work and be enforceable. That is, I suggest, all that there is in the difference between Labour Members.

Ann Widdecombe: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. May I press him, once more, on the question that he has not answered? It is the duty of a Minister to explain Government thinking to the House when a Bill and a new clause are being proposed. My right hon. and hon. Friends say, If a gamekeeper, why not a farmer? I, of course, put it the other way: If we ban it for farming, why not for gamekeeping? There must be a difference. The Minister cannot say that it is between hunting and shooting because terriers are dogs, not guns. Will he please tell us the difference?

Alun Michael: The evidence was that there was a need for terrier work to be undertaken for the protection of birds, and that there was a danger that a Bill dealing with hunting might unintentionally interfere with that activity. There is a clear distinction in our manifesto commitments on hunting and shooting. That is why I made it clear, in accepting the amendment in Committee, that, provided there was a code of conduct to deal with any possible inconsistencies, I would bring forward an amendment or an amendment would be tabled in another place. That undertaking, given in Committee, was the basis on which I accepted the amendment on hunting and will be adhered to.

Henry Bellingham: I have a courteous intervention. The other day, I was contacted by a small farmer in my constituency who has a terrier and carries out his own pest control. He is not actually a qualified gamekeeper but he does exactly what such a person would do. On that reasoning, would he qualify as a gamekeeper for these purposes?

Alun Michael: My understanding is that he would not, because we made a specific commitment on the sport of shooting and the position of gamekeepersthe question that was asked.

John Gummer: Could the right hon. Gentleman return to the point and explain why it is moral to use terriers when one goes shooting but not when one goes hunting? Why is it moral and acceptable to allow that use by gamekeepers, whom rich people can employ, but not by farmers who do it themselves?

Alun Michael: It is interesting that the right hon. Gentleman seeks to make an egalitarian argument. The point is not about differences of morality but about differences of practice and what it is necessary to do, and thus about the differences of evidence. I made clear in Committee the basis on which I accepted the amendment. Members will have to look at the amendment, when it is tabled, and the code of conduct allied to it, to deal with an issue that is outside that of hunting with dogs. That is what the Bill and the amendments that I am trying to deal with are about, although I realise that Opposition Members want to take us on to other tracks.

James Paice: Will the Minister give way?

Alun Michael: I will, but then I must make some progress.

James Paice: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He says that because the question is about shooting it is not related to the Bill, but if he plans to amend the Bill, it clearly is related to the Bill. Will he explain a little more about the detail of the amendment that he proposes to put before the House of Lords? Will he make clear who will fall under the heading gamekeeper? What sort of registration and qualifications will be needed? Will such people have to be full-time or part-time? Could it be a retired person? Who will actually be able to use terriers under his proposed amendment?

Alun Michael: I might be open to criticism if I spent time dealing with an amendment that will come before the House on a future occasion. If the hon. Gentleman wants to investigate the evidence and the distinctions, I refer him to chapter 5 of the Burns report. As I have indicated, everything that we have done refers back to the Burns report and to the evidence that I have been given during the period that I have been considering these issues.

James Gray: Will the Minister give way?

Alun Michael: This must really be the last time. I must make progress.

James Gray: I am sorry to tax the right hon. Gentleman on a procedural point. If he brings forward amendments in the other place and if, at some subsequent stage, the Bill is subject to the Parliament Act, is it his understanding that those amendments passed in the other place would also be subject to the Parliament Act at the same time?

Alun Michael: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are currently discussing new clause 13.

Alun Michael: May I make it clear that the provisions in part 2 mean that there should be evidence either that the activity does not serve a useful pest control purpose, which is broadly the case for banning hare hunting, or that the use of dogs would not result in significantly less suffering than the use of alternative methods? That is the case in deer hunting where it is clear that stalking and shooting by a trained marksman will always cause less suffering than hunting with dogs. In other cases, such as ratting, it is equally clear that the use of dogs will always be likely to cause less suffering than alternative methods, such as snaring or poisoning.
	In between are the cases that are now at issue, where the evidence presented by Burns is less clear-cut, so the Bill as drafted will provide a strictly impartial and independent registrar and tribunal to apply the two tests on a case-by-case basis. The registrar and the tribunal will apply the same standardsthe tests set out in clause 10to all cases, having regard to the individual circumstances. That is a very brief outline of how the Bill works. It is based on principle and the application of evidence, and it will work. It will, for example, provide clarity and simplicity of enforcement because all that the police will need to ask a hunter is, Are you registered?
	I shall contrast the amendments from the Conservatives and the middle way group with our proposals. The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) would remove the prohibitions on the registration of deer hunting and hare hunting. He will no doubt tell us that the proponents of those activities should have the opportunity to put their case to the registrar and tribunal, but he proposes in another groups of amendments to delete clause 10, so removing the tests of utility and least suffering from the Bill. I can detect no principled approach in that.
	In fact, I shall advise the House to support the hon. Gentleman's amendments to delete clauses 6 and 7, in favour of my new clause 13, which would consolidate and replace their provisions, but the principle on which I stand is that it is right for Parliament to conclude that deer hunting and hare hunting could not pass the two tests and that therefore it would be wrong to enable proposals for those types of hunting to go to the tribunal. It would be misleading to applicants to suppose that they might be granted registration, and it would be a misuse of the registrar and the tribunal to require them to consider applications that could never be granted.
	I shall similarly advise the House to support amendment No. 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), to delete clause 9, which prohibits the registration of hunting involving the use of dogs under ground. However, he would replace that clause with a feeble new clausenew clause 6which would permit the use of dogs under ground and enable the Secretary of State to prescribe a code of practice, but which makes no provision for people to have to comply with that code.
	New clause 13 would retain the prohibitions on the registration of deer hunting and hare hunting and the use of dogs underground that were agreed by the Standing Committee and consolidate them into one clear clause, but it would go beyond consolidation in relation to cub hunting. The Standing Committee regarded the practice of autumn or cub hunting as abhorrent and unnecessary, and I gave an undertaking that I would take away the Committee's concerns and introduce a suitable amendmentit is in new clause 13.
	I now turn to new clause 13(4), which makes it clear that hunting foxes, mink and other species may only be registered under part 2 when the two tests of least suffering and utility are satisfied. That makes it clear that such hunting will be permitted only where it is necessary for pest control purposes and where it causes the least suffering. New clause 13 therefore both adds a useful new measure to deal with the unnecessary suffering caused during autumn or cub hunting and clarifies the Bill's structure.
	Clause 11, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), seeks what is described as an absolute ban on fox hunting by precluding its registration. I appreciate that some of my hon. Friends believe that fox hunting with dogs is always so cruel that it can never be justified. I must respect that belief, but I say to my hon. Friends that it goes beyond the available evidence. Yes, a lot of fox hunting is unnecessary and, if it serves a useful pest control purpose, that purpose can be achieved by other means that cause less suffering, but that is not necessarily true of all fox hunting. Burns made it clear that there may be situations where using dogs may cause significantly less suffering than other methods.

Gerald Kaufman: The Minister says that some of his hon. Friends believe that fox hunting is cruel in all circumstances. I would draw his attention to the fact that among those hon. Friends is the Prime Minister, who said on 17 January 2001:
	I am opposed to fox hunting.[Official Report, 17 January 2001; Vol. 361, c. 344.]
	Of course, that is in conformity with the Labour party election manifesto, which did not say that we would put the control of fox hunting in the hands of a registrar and a tribunal; it said that we would carry out the wish of the House to ban fox hunting.

Alun Michael: I point out to my right hon. Friend that, after the failure of previous Bills, I was asked to undertake a new process and to introduce a Bill to enable Parliament to resolve this issue and, in doing so, to fulfil a manifesto commitment from the last election. I also point out to him that I have voted for what can be described as a complete ban on fox hunting when such a proposal has come before the House previously, but I have concluded, having looked at all the evidence, that we need to target cruelty, rather than activity. We need to ban cruelty, rather than what activity people undertake or what clothes they wear. I have been consistent with that aim in introducing a Bill that completely bans cruelty in relation to fox hunting. I am certain that, in supporting the approach that I have taken, that is what the Prime Minister has in mind too.

Nick Palmer: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for being exceptionally generous in giving way in all directions. Can he clarify something? He set out very clearly that the Bill divides species into three categoriesthose for which hunting with dogs is always cruel, those for which it is never cruel and those for which it needs to be subject to registration. If we were to add one or two species to the first category, why would that action produce the need for consequential legislation?

Alun Michael: Because the Bill is structured to deal with all cruelty and to focus on cruelty. I am sure that my hon. Friend will recall that I said a moment ago that Burns made it clearI underline these wordsthat there may be situations where using dogs may cause significantly less suffering than other methods. So I reached the conclusion that I could not, in good consciencethis goes back to the golden thread that remains in the legislationaccept the idea of a complete ban on fox hunting, which is what is set out in new clause 11, as some people would be prevented from using the method of control that causes the least suffering. That may apply to a small number of cases, but the point is that it would be inconsistent to allow that. I ask my hon. Friendsin particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer)whether that is what they really want. Would that really be in the interests of animal welfare?
	I have explained how the Bill, as it is now constructed, would ban all cruelty. The two tests ensure that the activity must be necessary and that hunting with dogs is only possible when it would cause significantly less suffering than alternative methods. There is no sleight of hand. The tests are strict. They will prevent the things that my hon. Friends and I rightly object to: the wilful, prolonged ceremonial pursuit and the inhumane slaughter of foxes for fun. That is very precise.

David Cameron: Will the Minister give way?

Alun Michael: I gave an indication that I needed to make a little progress.
	On new clause 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes), the considerations that I have just discussed also apply in relation to the proposal to ban the registration of mink hunting. Banning mink hunting looks like a simple solution, but looks are deceptive. There is no certain evidence that hunting mink with dogs will always fail the two tests, and banning hunting, rather than the cruelty caused by hunting, may result in unnecessary suffering. Once again, that is not something that, in good conscience, I can recommend to the House, so I hope that I have again made clear the points of principle that apply to the new clauses.
	I must also tell the House that, if it were to agree to my new clause 13, there will be nothing to prevent the Bill being agreed to on Third Reading and being sent to the other place tonight. The sooner that the Bill moves forward, the sooner the controls on hunting with dogs that it introduces can come into force. In contrast, if the House were to decide to accept new clauses 11 and 14, it would result in the Bill being unacceptable without further amendment. That is not a subterfuge. As I have indicated already, it is a simple matter of practicality.

Lynne Jones: I have signed new clauses 11 and 14, but I agree with my right hon. Friend that the most important point is to ban cruelty and to ensure that, when culling is necessary, the least cruel method is used. If he is telling me that passing new clauses 11 and 14 will hinder the banning of cruelty, I am perfectly prepared to accept his assurances that new clause 13, which I have also supported, will do what we on the Labour Benches want.

Alun Michael: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point.
	Let me spell out the reasons for recommittal. Consequential technical amendments would have to be made to make a Bill to which new clauses 11 and 14 had been added into workable legislation. For example, amendments would be needed to bring the new clauses into force one month after Royal Assent, which would be necessary for the proper working of the Bill. Amendment No. 100 in my name makes the necessary provision in relation to new clause 13.
	Secondly, the Government could not agree to the establishment of the registrar and the hunting tribunal if their only task might be to consider applications for the hunting of wild boar if that ever happens. That would be an unjustifiable waste of taxpayers' money. If new clauses 11 and 14 were added to the Bill, it would therefore be necessary to recommit the Bill to strip out references to the registration and tribunal system. That would require detailed amendments to every part of the Bill.

Eric Martlew: My right hon. Friend has been very generous in giving way. However, was he not aware that new clause 11 would be tabled, so was it not remiss of him not to have tabled the necessary amendments so that we would not have to recommit the Bill? He knew that new clause 11 would be tabled.

Alun Michael: I knew that amendments were going to be tabled, but I did not have sight of them.

Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You were not in the Chair during the debate on the programme motion when Mr. Speaker clarified a point that was accepted by the Minister without qualification. I put it to Mr. Speaker that, if new clause 11 were passed and there were consequential amendments, the Bill could complete its stages next week and would get to the House of Lords in time, if necessary, for the Parliament Act to be invoked this Session. That is what Mr. Speaker accepted from the Chair. That being so, is it acceptable for the Minister to read out now what he may have thought valid before Mr. Speaker gave his ruling but is no longer valid now? The Minister is threatening the House when Mr. Speaker has disposed of that threat.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that was not a point of order for the Chair but a point for debate.

Alun Michael: I make it clear that I have taken back nothing of what I agreed to earlier nor contradicted anything that Mr. Speaker said. I would do no such thing. It is simply a matter of fact that a vote for new clauses 11 and 14 is a vote for recommittal and some delay. My right hon. Friend has spelt out again the answers that he received from Mr. Speaker about the way things would apply, and I confirmed that there is nothing with which I would demur in those remarks. However, an element of delay would be involved and, in all the processes that involve the Parliament Act, there seem to be degrees of uncertainty because of the very small number of cases to which it has been applied.

Rob Marris: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his generosity, but I just understood him to say that, were new clause 13 not to be accepted and were new clause 11 to be accepted, he would regard the Bill as unworkable and impractical and that it would therefore need to be recommitted. He gave two reasons for that. The first related to the one month for commencement and the second to the registration process for boar. Neither is legislatively necessary even if they are philosophically necessary for the Government. Under clause 52(2), the commencement could come in at three months rather than at one month as under clause 52(1) to which my right hon. Friend refers. The fact that the Government think money is not worth spending on wild boar registration is not a legislative problem. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. An hon. Gentleman is making his point.

Alun Michael: I make the point to my hon. Friend that, when the Government make sure that legislation goes through, they have to ensure that it is effective and that public money is not wasted. I indicated the defects that would be there by way of illustration only. Recommittal would be necessary for the reasons that I have given, because we could otherwise end up with defective legislation to which it could not be guaranteed that the Parliament Act would apply. Right hon. and hon. Friends have made clear their wish to see that Act apply should another place frustrate the Bill.

Nicholas Soames: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) to be brutalised by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs? The expression of pain and anguish on his face is enough to turn the soul of any political opponent. He needs your protection.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman needs my protection. I have seen no sign that he is being brutalised.

Alun Michael: We are talking about co-operation and sympathy across the Chamber. I just want to make it clear that, if at all possible, I am looking for the other place to receive a Bill that is in good order and that will be effective and to co-operate in getting a good Act on to the statute book as quickly as possible.
	The Bill before us at this stage is not just the Bill as drafted and based on the evidence that we heard in the Burns inquiry and in the Portcullis House inquiry, but the Bill as tested and improved in Committee. In particular, I pay tribute to my hon. Friends who helped in Committee, and I make it clear that we have the opportunity today to get good legislation through the House and to send it in good order to another place and on to the statute book.

Ann Widdecombe: May I press the Minister on the necessity for recommittal? He knew that an attempt would be made today to get a complete ban. Furthermore, he knew the terms of the new clause because it was ready to be laid at the end of the Committee stage when Labour Members were most unadvisedly persuaded that the Government really wanted the whole House to have an opportunity to vote on such a ban. He therefore knew that there would be such a move and he knew the terms of that move, so he could have worked out the effect of that on the Bill. Will he please tell us why he did not table contingency amendments today as any other Government would have done in the past and as is easy to do?

Alun Michael: Perhaps the right hon. Lady will explain to me why she uses the phrase a complete ban when what is on offer today is a complete ban on the cruelty associated with hunting with dogs and a complete ban on hunting as a sport. What does she want to do? Does she want to ban cruelty or does she simply want to ban activity? I seek to ban cruelty. I have always thought that Members of the House who have supported Bills in the past and who have supported a ban with exceptions wanted to make sure that they banned all cruelty. That is why I ask the House to support me and to pass the Bill today without new clauses 11 and 14, so that it can complete its passage through the House in time for Second Reading in another place on 17 July and to ensure that we end the cruelty that the House has always sought to end. [Interruption.]

Several hon. Members: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), I ask the House to calm down and to listen to the rest of the debate.

James Gray: Calm, sensible and rational people across Britain and, more so, people in the rest of the world, will observe our proceedings with a mixture of horror and puzzlement. It is a bizarre waste of parliamentary time to discuss hunting when just 2 per cent. of the British public think that it is a priority issue. When most people are asked about hunting, they say, Who cares? If they want to hunt, it is up to them. It is a matter for individual conscience. At a time when we have soldiers dying in Iraq and the health service, education and transport are in crisis, why are we wasting a valuable day of parliamentary time discussing fox hunting?

Howard Stoate: rose

James Gray: I have only just started my speech but I may give way in a moment.
	It seems bizarre to discuss hunting because people in the countryside, especially, will not understand why the Government have not found time for a full debate on the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy, which is vital for the countryside. They will not understand why months have elapsed since we had any kind of debate on farming and why we are ignoring such crucial subjects as rural transport and housing, reviving our rural villages and businesses and saving the environment for future generations. Why are the Government ignoring those vital rural issues in favour of a little totemism on fox hunting?

Alun Michael: Does the hon. Gentleman pay tribute to the success of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State during negotiations on the common agricultural policy? He appears to be unaware of the many debates that are held week after week in such places as Westminster Hall on what the Government are doing to help the countryside.

James Gray: I fear that if I were to participate in a debate on the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy, Madam Deputy Speaker, you would quickly rule me out of order. All the Minister need do is ask any farmer, anyone in the countryside or anyone who is protesting in Parliament square at the moment what they think about the mid-term review and they will tell him straightforwardly.
	Hon. Members of all parties will have seen the article in The Times on Friday in which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that unless he got his way on the Hunting Bill, he would vote against his Government's health reforms, which he would otherwise support. By a cruel irony, today's debate displaces a debate on the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, which means that it is unlikely to receive its Second Reading in the other place until after the summer. Hunting with dogs has displaced the Government's keynote health service reforms, which demonstrates the triumph of their prejudice over the future of the nation's health.

David Winnick: Is the hon. Gentleman's logic that, because there are always other important issues, the House of Commons should be deprived of the opportunity to discuss hunting with dogs?

James Gray: The House has discussed the issue on many occasions and given that the country and the health service are in such crisis, one would have thought that a Labour Government would have thought that those matters were much more important than hunting with dogs. Frankly, most people in the country could not care less about the issue.

Howard Stoate: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: I shall because the hon. Gentleman is very persistent.

Howard Stoate: May I inform the hon. Gentleman that, although 2 per cent. of the population think that fox hunting is the most important issue for them, many of my constituents in Dartford think that ending the cruel and barbaric sport once and for all is a high priority? Although it might not be the only thing on their minds, it ranks as one of the most important things.

James Gray: I grant the hon. Gentleman that of the 55 million people in this nation, there are no doubt a few thousand people on each side of the argumentmine as well as hiswho think that the issue is overwhelmingly important. However, I challenge him to cite a poll of any kind that shows that people believe that it is important for the House to discuss hunting with dogs. It is a total and utter waste of time. Parliament should not consider such a matter. It should be a matter for individuals' consciences and individuals should make up their own minds.

Nick Palmer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have not been in the House long, so am I right in thinking that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) should be addressing new clause 12?

Hon. Members: Thirteen.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate that is currently under way certainly begins with new clause 13. I hope that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and others will address their remarks to the group of amendments.

James Gray: I most certainly am doing so, Madam Deputy Speaker. New clause 13rather than new clause 12and the other new clauses and amendments in the group are central to the entire question of whether hunting should be banned outright, as many Labour Members want; whether, as we believe, it should be registered and all types of hunting should be licensed if that is the registrar's view; or whether the Minister's half-hearted view, which is a muddle between the two, should be adopted. The debate is almost like a Second Reading debate on fox hunting and the way in which it should be regulated, which is why it is important to address the general points.
	The Billespecially if it is amended in the way in which the Government wishbears no resemblance to the Bill that we discussed on Second Reading. Fundamental changes were made in Committee and the Minister is now asking us to accept further changes.

Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend has explained that we are spending much more time on the issue. Surely the response to the point made by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) is that if we knock on 100 doors in our constituency, we might well find that 50 people would be against hunting and support a ban. However, perhaps only one out of those 100 people would tell us that it is a top 20 issue that should be a Government priority while so many other things are going on.

James Gray: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I told a friend, who is a Labour Member, that a certain matter was a big issue in my postbag. When he asked me how many letters I had received, I said that I had received at least 100. He said that at least 89,900 people had not written to me.

Lynne Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues guarantee the House that they will never waste its time with any matter that is not in the top 20 of people's concerns?

James Gray: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to reiterate something that my right hon. Friend the leader of the Conservative party made plain recently. If hunting were banned under the Bill, an incoming Conservative Government would give equivalent time to a private Member's Bill so that hunting could be reintroduced.
	The Bill has already been subject to an extraordinary amount of consideration. The Burns report took six months to prepare, at huge national cost. There were three days of discussions in Portcullis House and we had 27 Committee sittingsa total of 75 hours and 43 minutes all told. After all that, we have a mere five and a half hours on Report, which is too little time, in which to consider 100 amendments and 15 new clauses, many of which are complex and fundamental measures that were tabled by the Government.

John Gummer: Will my hon. Friend cast his mind back to the start of the Committee stage when the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality said that the Bill was presented on a moral ground? He talked about morality a great deal, but when we pointed out the extent to which the morality that he put forward was immoral, he stopped talking about it. Will my hon. Friend help the Minister by pointing out the moral basis of the proposals in the amendments?

James Gray: My right hon. Friend's speech on the morality of banning hunting was probably the finest of the many speeches made in Committee. I shall return to the point that he raised in a moment.
	The provisions in new clause 13 that the Minister is asking us to accept were not hinted at in the Burns report, in Portcullis House or in Committee. Neither he nor anyone else has suggested a close season for hunting. We heard no whisper of that brand new idea until today, and the same is true of several of his other novel ideas, such as limiting the chase. No one tabled such an amendment in Committee and no one in Portcullis House suggested such a measure. No one has suggested limiting the chase but all of a sudden, as the Bill reaches its final stages, the Minister has come up with that extraordinary idea.

Gregory Barker: Does my hon. Friend have any idea how the Government might enforce such a bizarre and ridiculous idea as limiting the chase? How would it be enforced if it reached the statute book?

James Gray: My hon. Friend is right to raise that important point. The Minister has not thought through the provision at all, and I shall suggest why he has come up with the peculiar notion of limiting the chase in a moment.

Rob Marris: The general thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument seems to be that new clause 13 is ill considered. Does he intend to vote against it?

James Gray: Yes, indeed I shall vote against new clause 13. I cannot think why the hon. Gentleman asked that question because I thought that I had made that obvious but if I had not, I shall now. I hope that many Labour Members will join me in voting against it because of the absurd procedure that the Minister disgracefully put in place to try to disfranchise them.
	The group of amendments offers three approaches. First, there is the Minister's desperate struggle to keep his much abused licensing system, although frankly his attempt to add further bans wrecks any principle that ever existed behind the approach. The new clause tabled by the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), which is supported by 150 Labour Members, would introduce a straightforward outright ban on all forms of fox hunting at all times of the year.
	Incidentally, I mention in passing new clause 6 and amendment No. 1, tabled by my hon. Friends in the middle way group, which would allow terrier work underground to be licensed, a move that would be much welcomed by the shooting lobby. The Minister has failed to answer my procedural question: if he introduces amendments in the other place to differentiateI have no idea how he wouldbetween hunt terrier men and gamekeepers, and if, at a later stage, the Bill is subject to the Parliament Act, is it his understanding that any such amendment passed in the other place would be part of that Parliament Act procedure? I suspect not and if he has not tabled amendments in this place, any such lip service to the gamekeepers may bite the dust subsequently. Perhaps the Minister would care to give his view on that.

Alun Michael: Quite simply, there are ways, by means of resolution of the House, by which something that is not in the Bill when it leaves this place can be associated with a Parliament Act procedure.

James Gray: The Minister has some pretty crafty things up his sleeve, and I am delighted to hear it. When his noble Friends table such amendments in the other place, I hope that he will reiterate that those amendments introduced in the House of Lords will remain part of the Bill irrespective of what happens in this House.

Edward Garnier: We are extending the criminal law. Does my hon. Friend think it in the least acceptable that it should be extended so haphazardly by amendments and new clauses written on the back of an envelope and by exchanges between here and another place? We should know with certainty what the Government intend to do with the criminal law rather than fiddle around in an absurd way with this absurd Minister on this Bill.

James Gray: My hon. and learned Friend is right.

Alun Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: I think that it would be procedurally correct to answer my hon. and learned Friend first. One would have thought that a Labour Government of all things would be able to ban fox hunting without getting into the appalling muddle, mix and Horlicks in which they find themselves. It is amusing for us to see Labour Members arguing with each other. It is a mess. My hon. and learned Friend is right. It is a terrible way to amend the criminal law.

Hugo Swire: The Minister has spoken of discussing with the British Association for Shooting and Conservation how gamekeepers could continue to use terriers in certain circumstances. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that amendments tabled in the other place may be contrary to the spirit and wording of the Labour party manifesto, which said:
	We have no intention whatsoever of placing restrictions on the sports of angling and shooting?
	Such amendments would, by definition, place a restriction.

James Gray: My hon. Friend is right. Perhaps I could gently suggest why the Minister has not chosen to table the amendments in this House and why he is waiting to introduce them in the other place. It would be an amusing scene to see him stand at the Dispatch Box and explain to his hon. Friends on the Back Benches that he intends to make the use of terriers underground a legal matter in certain circumstances. He knows perfectly well that there is no chance at all, under any circumstances, of even persuading the Minister for the Environment, who sits next to him, of the wisdom of that. That is why he has deferred the matter to the other place, in the hope that he will to get it through there.

Alun Michael: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing a break in the rhetoric for the question to be answered. We are waiting for the amendment to be tabled in another place so that the code of conduct is available. The first time that I took part in a debate in the House, I asked the then Conservative Government to produce information on a code of conduct that was part of legislation so that we were clear what we were voting on. I am practically doing the same thing with this measure so that it is effectively thought through and considered. I am responding to my undertaking in Committee. Although a Bill that is subject to the Parliament Act has to be the same as it is when it leaves this place, a separate motion can deal with the issue satisfactorily.

James Gray: The Minister demonstrates that he is in a complete and utter muddle on terriers. If a dog goes down a hole to get a fox out, what does it matter whether the man at the top has a green coat, a red coat, keeper's tweeds or scruffy clothing? Terrier work is terrier work. The Minister is attempting to stick to the Labour party's manifesto commitment not to interfere with shooting by coming up with an absurd distinction between those people who work for hunts, those who work for the gentry and, indeed, those people who come out from towns one evening to stick their dogs down a hole. There is no such distinction.

Bob Spink: While my hon. Friend is on that subject, as the Minister failed so miserably to define a gamekeeper, will he suggest where we might find such a definition? If not, will he encourage the Minister to get to his feet yet again to tell us where we can find it?

James Gray: My hon. Friend is right. The Minister is in a muddle. He has no clue about terriers. That is why he wants to defer the matter to the other place. It is also why the middle way group's excellent new clause 6 and amendment No. 1 try to address that problem.

Lembit �pik: rose

James Gray: I shall happily give way to one of the two leading members of the middle way group.

Lembit �pik: Does the Minister's response not raise two core concerns? First, how on earth will he guarantee that the amendment that he wants will be passed in another place? It is entitled to take a different view and might have a much more wide-ranging approach to terrier work. Secondly, how can he possibly assure us that even if such an amendment is passed in another place, it will get through this House, given the evident discomfort about terrier work on the Government Back Benches?

James Gray: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss hypothetical amendments that may or may not be discussed in another place. We have a group of new clauses and amendments to address.

James Gray: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would not question what you say, but the truth is that new clause 6 is about terrier work

Lembit �pik: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Much as I dislike making points of order, I suggest that our discussion relates to an amendment in the stringnew clause 6.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is for me to decide. At this moment in time, I feel that we have a large enough group of amendments to discuss and we should make some progress.

James Gray: You are, of course, right, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall move on to other amendments in the group, not just new clause 6. However, I hope that we will have an opportunity to vote on new clause 6. It will be most interesting to see what the Minister does and how he advises his hon. Friends to vote. If he is in favour of terrier work, as he says he is under some circumstances, it might be a good idea to allow the registrar to decide whether it should happen, and voting for new clause 6 would be a way to achieve that.

Rob Marris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: I will, but I am trying to make progress.

Rob Marris: Does the hon. Gentleman share my surprise at what the Minister said about a code of conduct when a National Working Terrier Federation code of conduct already exists? I have a copy of it with me.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The National Working Terrier Federation is an excellent organisation and it controls the use of terriers satisfactorily. There is a code of conduct and I hope that the Government will consider it as an exemplar for the one that they propose.
	The third option is offered in amendments Nos. 43 and 44, tabled in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. They would remove the outright bans on different categories altogether and allow them to be considered on an equal basis by the registrar. So there are three clear options: the Minister's muddled semi-licensing; the outright ban proposed by the hon. Member for West Ham; and my preferred option, for all forms of hunting to be capable of licensing by the registrar.
	I have to admit that I would slightly prefer the Minister's licensing option to an outright ban. At least if we send a licensing option to the upper House, my noble Friends will be able to amend it into a workmanlike and liberal licensing structure. If we allow a licensing structure, an incoming Conservative Government, which will come along sooner or later, might be able to build on it to save hunting. I very much hope that the outright ban will not go to the other place. I hope that some kind of licensing regime will go instead. I also hope that my noble Friends in the other place will amend the Minister's illiberal and difficult licensing regime into a liberal and workmanlike regime.

David Burnside: Does my hon. Friend agree that the immediate impact of the Government's licensing arrangements or a total ban would be the destruction of tens of thousands of foxes, which would be shot by farmers?

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, which I shall consider in a moment. There is no evidence that the abolition of huntingwhether by means of licensing or an outright banwould result in fewer animals being killed. Indeed, most observers recognise that it would result in more animals being killed and be unselective. The great thing about using dogs to kill animals is that dogs are selective as to which animals are killed. If one is lamping at night, there is no telling whether one is killing a young, middle-aged or ageing fox. In most places where hunting has been stopped or abandoned for any reason, it is obvious that many more animals are killed and nearly always using less humane methods.

David Cameron: rose

Nick Palmer: rose

James Gray: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) after I have given way to my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron).

David Cameron: Did my hon. Friend notice the Minister shaking his head when he suggested that more foxes would be killed. Does he recall that in the other place Lord Burns said:
	If hunting were subject to a ban I have little doubt that at least an equivalent number of foxes, deer and hare would be killed by other means?[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 March 2001; Vol. 623, c. 532.]
	Does my hon. Friend think that the Minister does not bother to read this stuff before he brings deeply illiberal legislation to the House?

James Gray: My hon. Friend makes a good point but in rather an unfair way. The Minister has spent a considerable part of the last year working on this nonsense. He must regret it deeply; he ought to be doing something more useful and he has not made a particularly good job of it. However, to be fair to him, he probably has read most of the documents that have come his way, although it is odd that he seems to have chosen to ignore them.

Bob Spink: Will my hon. Friend give way?

James Gray: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not. I have only just started and I would like to get to the meat of my speech.
	Many of us on this side of the argument were encouraged by the Minister's approach to the issue at the time of the Portcullis House hearings. We accepted that some regulation of hunting was inevitable and worth while and that a fair, liberal licensing regime, such as that proposed in new clause 1 and new schedule 1, would be reasonable.
	We were pleased by the Minister's assurance that he had listened carefully to the scientific arguments and that the Bill would be constructed on the firm foundation of principle rather than prejudice. We broadly accepted the principles of utility and least suffering on which he planned to base his registration regime, provided that they embraced all wild mammals and all methods of controlling them. Probably the only thing that the scientists and others at Portcullis House agreed on was that all mammals should be considered in precisely the same way.
	Imagine our surprise then when the Bill was eventually published and it became clear that it was not based on the principle of scientific evidence but was a desperate effort to cobble together a deal to buy off the Minister's Back-Bench colleagues and his friends in the League Against Cruel Sports and the RSPCA. He had changed his tests of least suffering and utility in such a way as to make them extremely difficult to pass, but even more bizarrely and unjustifiably he wanted to impose an outright ban on deer hunting and organised hare coursing. There is no logic or principle in that. It may be reasonable and sensible to apply the tests of least suffering and utility to the hunting of all mammals, but why on earth should those two practices be singled out for an outright ban? Why should they not be subject to the same tests, and pass or fail, alongside fox and mink hunting?

Angela Browning: I know that my hon. Friend has taken the trouble to visit Exmoor. Is he as concerned as I am that when I questioned the Minister on Second Reading about what analysis he had made of the impact on Exmoor of the ban on stag hunting, it was clear that he had made no analysis of the eventual demise of the deer herds there?

James Gray: My hon. Friend is very kind. I think that the Minister took the trouble to visit Exmoor for two or three hours, but he certainly knows nothing of the social, cultural and economic effects of the ban on life on Exmoor. It is interesting to note that Lord Burns said that the Government should take into account such effects of a ban on places such as Exmoor, and the Government have chosen to ignore that advice. They have taken Burns very selectively.
	The House will remember that on Second Reading on 3 December the Minister explained why he had chosen to ban stag hunting and hare coursing. He said:
	Incontrovertible evidence shows that the activities of hare coursing and deer hunting cannot meet the two tests, so these activities will be banned.
	He said later:
	Again, incontrovertible evidence has shown that such activities as ratting and rabbiting should be allowed to continue.[Official Report, 3 December 2002; Vol. 395, c. 756.]
	In Committee, the Minister cited as that incontrovertible evidence the work of Professor, now Sir Patrick Bateson. We all congratulate him on his knighthood. The Minister said that Bateson gives incontrovertible evidence as to why stag hunting should be singled out. Let me quote, however, what Professor Bateson had to say about that.

Alun Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: I am sure that the Minister does not want to hear what I am about to say. I shall happily give way and allow him to answer once I have given the full story.
	In an e-mail dated 21 January, Professor Bateson said:
	Only somebody who was scientifically illiterate could argue that evidence from a new area of research was 'incontrovertible'.
	In a subsequent letter to the Minister, which I just happen to have here, Professor Bateson said,
	I am told that the evidence for the poor welfare of deer arising from hunting with dogs was described as 'incontrovertible' . . . I would not want to describe my conclusions in those terms. No serious scientist could do that in a new area of research.
	The Minister wants to try to correct Professor Bateson.

Alun Michael: This is boring for those of us who were in Committee because I have put the hon. Gentleman right on several occasions. I did not refer to evidence as incontrovertibleone can always argue about evidence. I said that the conclusion was incontrovertible. If one looks at all the evidence available to us, which includes that given by Professor Bateson, it is incontrovertible that, because of the way in which deer hunting is undertaken, there are always alternatives available that involve less suffering. The hon. Gentleman should refer to the correspondence, which makes it clear that his misrepresentations were refuted at the time.

James Gray: The Minister is quite righthe came up with precisely that bizarre argument in Committee to try to defend himself against the accusation from Professor Bateson. He was shot down in flames. He cleverly said:
	I never said that the evidence was incontrovertible. I said that the argument was incontrovertible.[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 13 February 2003; c. 1076.]
	Here we have itwe have controvertible evidence, which may or may not be correct, but the argument based on that evidence is incontrovertible. The Minister's confusion speaks for itself.

Kate Hoey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what is incontrovertible is the fact that if deer hunting is banned, within a very short time there will not be a deer left on Exmoor?

James Gray: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Hunting has been stopped for brief periods on Exmoor, for example during the war, and the herd was significantly depleted. [Interruption.]

Kate Hoey: As some of my hon. Friends do not seem to understand that point, I shall explain it. The number of deer will fall because farmers will shoot them indiscriminately. At the moment, the culture on Exmoor means that farmers leave the deer to be dispersed by the hounds.

James Gray: The hon. Lady makes an extremely good point. There would be no reason for farmers on Exmoor to allow large numbers of deer to roam freely on their land were it not for the existence of hunting. They allow the deer to roam and depredate their crops because they like to go hunting and they believe in the cultural and economic upsides of hunting. If it were not for hunting, they would certainly want to go out and shoot deer and perhaps to seek an income from the trophies. That is perfectly legitimate and we see a certain amount of that on Exmoor at the moment. [Interruption.]
	It is interesting that the Minister, who does not know very much about these matters, asks, from a sedentary position, What about Scotland? He is entirely ignorant because the landscape and the land ownership on Exmoor are totally different from that in Scotland. There, the farmers have the opposite problem. There are far too many red deer in Scotland, and we have to find a more effective means of culling them because we simply cannot get rid of them, but on those large estates, where deer graze on heather and trees on high ground, there is no depredation for farmers to deal with. In Exmoor, the farms are about 200 or 300 acres, and farmers would not put up with depredation on their land if it were not for the existence of hunting.

Hugo Swire: This is a critical point, and it shoots a hole through the Minister's claim that the Bill has anything to do with animal welfare. In response to DEFRA's hunting consultation in 2002, the Exmoor national park authority said:
	No agreed alternative model to the current management regime yet exists for an appropriate mechanism for deer management that will maintain current numbers, quality and visibility of wild red deer on Exmoor.
	To alter the situation without putting a new model in place would be a criminal act.

James Gray: My hon. Friend is of course right, but we are straying somewhat from the central point on which I am challenging the Minister. He has, in his wisdom, chosen to single out deer hunting, organised hare coursing and one or two other activities to which I shall return later. He said that his reason for doing so was that he had incontrovertible evidence that deer hunting was demonstrably a great deal more cruel than, for example, fox hunting, which, at least at that time, was to be allowed to continue subject to the registration procedures. He said that he had incontrovertible evidence, but he never produced it. He says that Bateson is not incontrovertible, so he must have something else; he must tell us what it is.

Alun Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: If I must.

Alun Michael: Yes, it is rather boringthe hon. Gentleman repeats himself again and again. I said that the case against deer hunting was incontrovertible. As I reported to the Committee, I spent time with people on Exmoor and became absolutely convinced that the case remained incontrovertible. The case does not depend solely on Professor Bateson's evidence, important though that is. It also applies to hare coursing: it is impossible to make the case that hare coursing has utilitythat argument must fail. That is what is incontrovertible. The hon. Gentleman does not appear to understand the English language.

James Gray: Let us accept for a moment the Minister's argument that he has incontrovertible evidence that stag hunting and hare coursing are so wicked that they must be banned outright. If that is so, what is the incontrovertible evidence that proves that hare hunting, terrier work and now, apparently, autumn hunting also have to be banned outright? What has happened since Portcullis House that provides new evidence on those three activities? The right hon. Gentleman never said before that he had incontrovertible evidence in respect of them. He banned stag hunting and hare coursing saying that those things were cruel, but said that he would allow autumn hunting, terrier work and so on. However, since Portcullis House, since Second Reading, since Committee stage, the Minister has suddenly decided that there is an incontrovertible argument that those things too must be abolished.

Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman has considered the issues deeply and thoroughly examined evidence from a variety of sources, but has he looked at the management of deer on Bodmin moor and the strip of land from the moor down the Tamar? There is no hunting there, yet there is a substantial deer population and perfectly satisfactory deer population management. Has the hon. Gentleman understood that case?

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman speaks for the Liberal party which, I understand, has as party policy a ban on all forms of hunting. He does not seem to have realised that the thrust of my argument has moved on. I am trying to establish what the Minister's incontrovertible evidence was that stag hunting ought to be banned, whereas other forms of hunting ought to be allowed. The Minister's argument is that there was incontrovertible evidence on that subject; I am trying to establish what that evidence was, especially in the context of his decision that now three other activities must also be banned outright. He never argued that at Portcullis House or on Second Reading, and he never hinted at it during Committee stage. Something has happenedsome new evidence has emergedto make it absolutely plain that autumn hunting, for example, is as wicked as stag hunting. What we want to know is: why did the Minister not propose that it be banned before; what new evidence has emerged; and what has changed since Portcullis House?

Elliot Morley: It is a shame that many of these points were dealt with in Committee and we seem to be going over them yet again. Will the hon. Gentleman answer one question? In the context of utility, is he trying to tell the House that the only effective way to control deer is to chase them for hours at a time?

James Gray: The Minister was not listening. I sought to use the argument advanced by his right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality in respect of stag huntingthat there was incontrovertible evidence that it was wickedto explore the reasoning behind new clause 13. Incidentally, new clause 13 has nothing to do with stag hunting, so it would be quite out of order if I did answer the question.
	New clause 13 is about the banning of autumn hunting and terrier work. The Minister has now chosen to ban those things; I am seeking to discover what has happened since Second Reading and Committee to make him do that. Why does the Bill allow the hunting of rabbits, but not of hares? Why does he propose a closed season for the use of dogs to cull foxes, but not for the shooting or snaring of foxes? Apparently, it is perfectly legitimate and acceptable to shoot or snare foxes, no matter how old, young or indifferent, in August, September and October, but not to hunt them using dogs in those months. Why does the Minister differentiate in that way?
	Why has the Minister called autumn hunting, with his usual objectivity, a mischief? Is there any genuine animal welfare need for a closed season? If there is, surely it ought to be during the breeding season. Why has the Minister proposed a ban on fox hunting during August, September and October? Those of us who hunt would never do it, but the Minister's proposal means that theoretically it would be legitimate for us, under registration, to use dogs to hunt foxes in May, June and Julythe time when vixens are pregnant and cubs are very young, still in the earth, and cannot look after themselves. It would be legitimate under the new clause for us to continue to use dogs under registration during that period, but apparently he wants to ban the practice during August, September and October. Why? Where is the animal welfare logic in that? There is none.
	Why should not all fox hunting be subject to the tests of utility and least suffering? If the activity is as bad as the Minister has argued it is, presumably the registrar and the tribunal will find against all hunting, whether in autumn or winter. The truth is that new clause 13 has absolutely nothing to do with improving animal welfare or humaneness. It has everything to do with sentimentality, ignorance and, overwhelmingly, with political deal making.

Nick Palmer: I detect in the hon. Gentleman's speech a note of criticism of new clause 13. In an interesting passage, he said that if we introduced registration, a future Conservative Government might be able to use it to restore fox hunting. How many of the practices mentioned in new clause 13 would the Conservatives reintroduce?

Hon. Members: All of them.

James Gray: Yes, all of them. That is the simple and straightforward answer. The activities are legal now and we see no reason to make them illegal. They are perfectly legitimate activities.

Simon Thomas: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's response to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer). Earlier, he said that the Conservative party now accepted that hunting should be regulated in some way. I, too, have taken that point on board, because there are issues of cruelty and utility that require some form of licensing and independent assessment. It therefore cannot be as simple as the hon. Gentleman says. If we state the twin principles of cruelty and utility, the only credible course open to us as politicians is to hand the matter to the independent authority and let the authority deal with hunting in every situation and at every time of the year. Surely he agrees with that.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman offers one possible solution, albeit not one that comes within the terms of the new clause. I have always accepted the need for some form of regulation or registration. Indeed, throughout my hunting lifeI have hunted for 30 yearsI have hunted under a licence. For the past seven years, the Labour Government have issued me with a licence to hunt on Salisbury plain with the Royal Artillery hunt. Forty hunts across Britain have hunted since the last war under Government-issued licences, and there is no reason why that licensing regime should not be expanded to cover all huntsindeed, that was precisely the thrust of new clause 1 and new schedule 1, which I proposed and which we discussed briefly in Committee. It is perfectly sensible to register and to regulate huntingthere is no problem with that. We are perfectly confident that we would pass the tests if they were properly drafted.

David Winnick: If the Bill is passed, in one way or another, may we take it that at the next election the Conservatives will make it clear that if they are elected, the House of Commons will have the opportunity to discuss and to make a decision on this issue? Will the Conservative party itself be pledged to repealing the measure that we are now debating and to bringing back fox hunting?

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman must have slipped out of the Chamber earlier, because I made the Conservative position clear. My right hon. Friend the leader of the Conservative party has always made it plain that hunting is free vote territory and that members of the party can make up their own mind. A great many members of my party in North Wiltshire strongly oppose fox hunting and I respect their positionI have no problem with it. We have said that if the Bill becomes law, an incoming Conservative Government will provide Government time to debate a Back Bencher's motion to turn it around. That is the commitment that we have made, and we did so publicly. However, that has nothing to do with new clause 13.
	I am keen to know why the Minister has decided, since Second Reading, consideration in Committee and Portcullis House, to introduce new clause 13, which would ban cub hunting and confirm the ban on all terrier work and the rest of it. The answer is that the clause is overwhelmingly to do with political deal making.
	If that is doubted, we need to look no further than a letter that came my way from the Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister, dated 14 May 2003. The Minister writes:
	I attach a summary, Annex 2, of the amendments that I believe will further assist the Bill's passage...They meet specific concerns raised by Government backbenchers and/or animal welfare organisations . . . The RSPCA has now written to all MPs giving support to the Bill. That support is conditional on amendments at Report Stage, in particular to ban cub huntingan activity about which both the public and MPs feel strongly...Given the value of RSPCA support, these amendments are very important to us in trying to secure the safe passage of the Bill. The Report stage will be crucial and the politics of this remain quite difficult.
	That is what the right hon. Gentleman had to say to the Deputy Prime Minister. It is nothing to do with animal welfare or human activity. It is because
	the politics of this remain quite difficult.
	The Minister had a dinner at Shepherd's with his friend Jackie Ballard, during which he did a dodgy deal. He agreed that he would bring forward a new clause that would ban cub hunting and do other things. That is not because he believes that that is the right course, but because he has done a deal with the RSPCA and one or two Labour Back-Bench Members. That is a disgraceful and ridiculous way in which to put together any sensible animal welfare measure. It is entirely contemptible.
	Any principle that the Bill ever had was destroyed by the Minister's attempt to ban certain activities outright in a desperate rearguard battle to save some vestige of his tattered Bill and some vestige of his tattered political career. The right hon. Gentleman might as well give up the unequal battle, and either give in to his straightforwardly abolitionist hon. Friends who supported new clauses 11 and 14, or allow me amendments Nos. 43 and 44, which would effectively bring all forms of hunting with dogs into the category that can be considered by the registrar.
	Incidentally, I am grateful to the Minister and his parliamentary private secretary for supporting amendments Nos. 43 and 44. I hope that they will support them even if their useless new clause 13 is defeated. By doing so, they will be reconstructing the logic of the Bill along with the intellectual rigour of the Bill, and allowing the registrar and the tribunal to decide whether or not any form of hunting should or should not be allowed. That would be an intellectually coherent position, unlike the present one.

Michael Jabez Foster: The hon. Gentleman suggests that all forms of hunting or other activity should be subject to registration. Can he think of a theoretical situation where a registration system would enable hare coursing to continue?

James Gray: Indeed I can. It would be up to the registrar to decide whether hare coursing should be allowed to continue. I see no harm in it at all. The curious thing about what the Minister has said about hare coursing is that under even these proposals all that would be abolished would be organised hare coursing events such as the Waterloo Cup. Private hare coursing on private land would still be allowed. There is no suggestion that it is to be outlawed. If I wanted to take my two dogs on to my private land to chase a hare, I would be allowed to do so.
	There is something worse than that. In the appendices to the Bill, there is a passage that provides that if one is hare coursing for the potthat is to eat the harethat is allowable. Even worse, if the hare is thought to be injured and runs away after it has been shot, the individual will be allowed to use his dogs to course it and catch it. Until now, illegal hare coursers have pursued their activities through threats and violence, but now they are incentivised to carry a gun to seek to shoot hares so that they can set their dogs on them. On this issue, the Minister is in as much of a muddle as he is anywhere else. The purpose behind organised hare coursing events is to kill as few hares as possible. About 200 hares a year are killed by organised hare coursing events, while many tens of thousands are killed by shooting.

Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend will be aware that in Norfolk there are a number of hare coursing clubs. It is those clubs, in conjunction with farmers and landowners, that police the situation to prevent illegal hare coursing. If the Bill is enacted as it stands, there will be a massive increase in illegal hare coursing, with all the problems that that causes.

James Gray: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. There is no reason to presume that the provisions in the Bill will reduce illegal hare coursingindeed, they will increase it. The Bill makes illegal only the perfectly reasonable, sensible and respectable occupations of those who, for example, take part in the Waterloo Cup, which is the decent end of hare coursing. Those activities are being banned but the illegal end, as it were, that my hon. Friend describes, will not be stopped.

Lembit �pik: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if the Bill goes through in its current formexempting the killing of rabbits by dogs in any waydogs will have to be trained to understand the difference between a hare and a rabbit?

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point, and one that the Minister has never answered. If we were to apply an entirely logical approach to the Bill, which I believe that we would do by allowing the registration of all forms of hunting, perhaps requiring the use of dogs on rabbits and rats would be perfectly sensible, so long as it were a liberal and sensible regime that would be reasonably easy to pass. Why not? That would be a logical, sensible and coherent approach. As I have to admit, it is a logical and coherent approach to seek an outright ban on all forms of usage, although we disagree entirely with it. It is the Minister's entirely muddled approach that is illogical and unsustainable.
	Opposition Members much prefer the Minister's original proposal that hunting should generally be allowed to continue if it passes practical and logical tests of least suffering and utility. We much prefer that to an outright ban. I call on my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against new clause 13, which wrecks the Minister's principled and scientific approach. We are confident that the other place will have an opportunity to amend the Bill and introduce a workmanlike and sensible licensing regime. At the very least, an incoming Conservative Government would seek to do so.
	The Minister's procedural tactic to prevent further discussion of the two amendments in my namethey would fall if new clause 13 is passedis disgraceful and against the fundamental principles of democracy in this place. Let us have a vote on my amendments and a vote on the amendment to ban. That is what we are here for. The Minister's procedural activities are disgraceful.
	The Minister has proposed amendment No. 100. Given that he says that he has no wish to ban all forms of foxhunting, I am more than a little puzzled by the amendment, which would change the title of clause 6 of the Bill from Deer to Registered Hunting: Absolute Bans: Deer, Hares, Foxes and Terrier-work. As I understand it, the Minister has not proposed that there should be an absolute ban on the hunting of foxes, but by the change of the title he might be admitting defeat to his abolitionist colleagues.
	Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 in the names of my hon. Friends and myself and of the Minister and his PPS offer an attractive alternative to both sides of the argument. Whatever kind of hunting it is, let it be considered by the registrar applying the Minister's tests of utility and least suffering, albeit amended and liberalised by my noble Friends in the other place. This should not be a debate about human activity; it should be about improving animal welfare, and it should be based on scientific evidence about the most humane way of culling certain mammal species.

Gregory Barker: There is a crucial point that has not so far been mentioned in the debate. I find it extraordinary that a Minister from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs should bring forward a Bill that has such a negative environmental impact. The Government's sustainable development credentials are increasingly tarnished. There is no assessment made of biodiversity and no assessment is made of

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The intervention is becoming rather long.

James Gray: You are right, Madam Deputy Speaker. I agree with my hon. Friend, but I am not sure that his intervention comes easily into the group of new clauses and amendments that we are discussing.
	We do not accept that hunting with dogs is cruel. Nor did Scott Henderson and Lord Burns. Incidentally, their reports were commissioned by a Labour Government. Nor was it found to be cruel by Professor Sir Patrick Bateson. The same applies to the other scientists and vets who considered the matter. No one has ever said that hunting with dogs is cruel. Equally, no one has suggested that fewer foxes, hares or deer will be killed as a result of the Bill's enactment. Indeed, most people believe that more animals will be killed by less humane methods if a selective cull using dogs were to be outlawed. The issue is not how many animals are killed, it is about the means by which they are killed. Is shooting a fox with a shotgun more or less cruel than snaring one? Would we rather be one of the 9,000 foxes killed in the London boroughs during the past 12 months, or one of the couple of hundred selectively killed by the Beaufort hunt in my constituency? Would we rather die of gangrene after being shot, die of hunger while stuck in a snare, or die swiftly at the hands of an organised hunt?
	We would argue that the use of dogs is the most selective and humane method of dispatch compared with, for example, indiscriminate shooting or snaring. After all, Lord Burns said at Portcullis House that
	the bulk of the concerns the Burns Report raised about hunting might be addressed through licensing, a regulatory approach or by changing the rules of the hunt.
	We realise that not everyone shares our view that hunting is the least cruel way of dealing with certain pests, and would be ready to argue our case, as originally set out by the Minister, before the registrar and tribunal. We are not afraid of a sensible and liberal licensing regime, but the Minister is now proposing that terrier work, autumn fox hunting, deer hunting, hare hunting and hare coursing should be banned outright on the basis of evidence known only to him, and that we should not have the opportunity to give evidence to the registrar. His Bill is now without principle or logic and cannot be justified by scientific evidence. The ridiculous new clause 13 wrecks it further, and is mainly a procedural ploy to prevent his hon. Friends from voting for an outright ban. We will join them in opposing new clause 13 tonight. Amendments Nos. 45 and 44 and new clause 6, by contrast, repair the logic and architecture of the Minister's Bill and would allow the continuation of hunting. I appeal to all reasonable hon. Members to support me in seeking a sensible licensing regime by voting for my amendments, which I commend to the House.

Tony Banks: May I tell the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) that we will be in the same Lobby as him this evening? I would like to know whether the flower that he is wearing is one of those squirty onesit is certainly more attractive than his speech.

Henry Bellingham: What did the Secretary of State say to the hon. Gentleman?

Tony Banks: I shall explain that in a minute.
	New clause 11, which I have signed along with 153 Members on both sides of the House, calls for a total ban. I agree with the hon. Member for North Wiltshire, and said so earlier, that our proceedings have been structured in an unfortunate way. If new clause 13 is agreed, we will not have a vote for a total ban under new clause 11, which would be a shame. This is a matter of opinion, but I believe that it should be tested in the House, because we have given such an undertaking to the country. Whether we win or lose, we should have the opportunity to have a vote, so I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that, if on nothing else.
	May I tell my right hon. Friend the Minister that his problem is that he is trying to be objective in an area where, frankly, views are highly subjective? It is as simple and straightforward as that. I am not going to rehearse all my feelings, but I believe that the killing of any animal for sport or fun is cruel and immoral and I make no distinction whatsoever between species in saying so. However, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend because the Bill, even if unamended by new clauses 13 and 11, still represents the most significant advance yet in the interests of animal welfare and the end of blood sports in the countryside. He is to be congratulated on that. I also accept that he assumed in good faith that we would have a vote on new clause 11, as did the Secretary of State. That, I can tell the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), is the gist of the gentle message that I was given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and, of course, I accept her word.
	However far the Bill goes, a ban on fox hunting is not the most significant animal welfare issue in the world. Because of everything that is going on, I had to miss a significant meeting today on elephant welfare in east Africaan animal welfare issue of far greater environmental and ecological significance to the great chain of being than the fox. However, the matter is now highly political and, in many regards, has become totemic. It is not the most important issue, but the credibility of the Government is beginning to depend on whether or not we are able to effect a total ban. The reason for that, of course, is the inordinate delay since 1997 which has prevented the House from resolving the problem once and for all. Some of my right hon. Friends at the highest level believe that it is possible to achieve a solution that satisfies everyone, but I am afraid that that is not possible. The tests that my right hon. Friend the Minister referred to as objective do not apply to a situation in which passions and subjectivity rule the day.

David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is worrying that some of the stories that appeared in the newspaper stories today and at the weekend gave the strong impressionI am not accusing the Minister, who is not Alastair Campbellthat if we insist on a total ban, the whole lot will be lost? I hate to use the word, but that is a sort of blackmail. We should stick to our guns, and vote for a total ban today.

Tony Banks: Let us assume that that is journalistic ignorance, which is not infrequently encountered in Parliament, rather than Government malice, which is something that we encounter less frequently. In other words, I do not believe that those stories arose from a briefing, which would be a clumsy way of suggesting that new clause 11 was sprung on the House. As I have explained, it has been around since 27 February, and if it posed any problems, they could have been eliminated. As I said earlier, we were asked by the Secretary of State not to move the provision in Committee, where we could have discussed it in full and eradicated any serious problems. We were told that we would have a debate, which we are now having, and a vote on the Floor of the House, where it really matters.
	New clause 11, which I support along with 153 Members from all parties, seeks a total ban on fox hunting while leaving the licensing system in place. If the Government believe that the Bill requires recommittal, that is only because they believe that it is too expensive to maintain a licensing system from which foxes have been removed. It would still be in place for mink, ferrets, stoats, wild boar and any other quarry species that the hunters can come up with. There is no reason why the Bill should be recommitted, but if the Government insist on it if we win the vote on new clause 11, we will accept that because we are not going to allow them to walk away and say that the supporters of new clause 11 have imperilled the Bill. That is not the caseeven without new clause 11, this remains a good Bill which we could live with, although it does not go far enough.

Gerald Kaufman: I obviously agree with the trend of my hon. Friend's argument, but it is very important indeed that the House understand, following what the Speaker said to me and what the Minister was compelled to admit to me in the debate on the programme motion, that if we carry the vote on new clause 11, and if it forms part of the Bill, the Bill can go on to the House of Lords and will be eligible for the use of the Parliament Act. It is very important in this debate not to concede what is not truethat the Bill could be lost if we carry the vote on new clause 11.

Tony Banks: I thank my right hon. Friend for his forensic searching out of that crucial factno one wants to lose the Bill on this side of the House; nor indeed do many Opposition Members. We have had sufficient assurances to know that if we achieve acceptance of new clause 11 by defeating new clause 13 we will not lose the Bill, which will still conform to the Parliament Act.
	My right hon. Friend the Minister has said that, with new clause 13, the Bill will deliver
	Labour's long-cherished commitment to ban the sport and cruelty of hunting with dogs.
	I am afraid that I do not share his certainty. It is a good hope and thought but, unfortunately, it is not a certainty. If hunting is to be banned, why cannot the Bill say so? It should be like that old Ronseal advertIt does what it says on the tin. If there is going to be a ban, we want the Bill to say so. I want that made quite clear.

Alun Michael: Does my hon. Friend accept that the first clause starts with the term ban, because like previous legislation, it is a ban with exceptions? The difference between the present Bill and previous Bills is that the exceptions in this case are clinically examined in order to make sure that there is less cruelty involved. The specific targeting on cruelty is the strength of the Bill.

Tony Banks: I have already conceded that this is a better Bill than we have had before, but it contains exemptions that allow an as yet unknown registrar with unknown guidelines to determine what goes on. Those exemptions might move beyond our control and we will find that we have fox hunting under a different name. That is the problem that we foresee, and it is largely the reason why we have been opposed to the idea of a registration system.

Nick Palmer: Does my hon. Friend agree that we would have a fundamental difficulty in persuading constituents that we were right to delegate a decision to a registrar, rather than take the decision, one way or the other, ourselves?

Tony Banks: I agree. What disturbs and worries me so much about the Government's position is that if people can see that there is still hunting going onthere will be plenty of coverage of itit will look as though we totally reneged on the undertaking that the Prime Minister and the party gave, and they will not understand it. People understand what a ban is, but exemptions can mean anything. Lawyers will argue that there is a justification for exemptions, they will make vast sums of money, as they usually do, and who knows?there might even at some stage be a change of Government, the guidelines to the registrar might get tweaked, and as we have already heard, the Tories have promised that there will be another vote on the matter. Fox hunting could be reintroduced, and they do not necessarily have to do it through legislationMinisters can change the guidelines.

Alun Michael: Has my hon. Friend noted that lawyers are arguing in Scotland, where there is an appearance of a ban in statute? There are two alternatives: either we delegate, as in this situation, to a registrar, who must take account of what Parliament will have decided, including the directions on matters such as the chase, which is dealt with in the Bill or in amendments; or we delegate interpretation to a court. That is what previous Bills would have done and what the Scottish legislation does, and it does not have the immediate enforceability of the Bill before us.

Tony Banks: I do not want to take up too much time, but these points must be answered. The reason there is a problem in Scotland is that the flushing of foxes to guns is not restricted in terms of the number of dogs that can be used to achieve it, so a whole pack of hounds can be used to flush the foxes to the guns. That is hunting by another name. At least in the Bill the Minister has correctly limited the flushing to two dogs, so a pack of dogs cannot be used. There are exemptions, and even my new clause 11 allows for exemptions, as it allows for that exemption as well.
	I accept what my right hon. Friend says. We all have to make compromises. We can never be 100 per cent. certain that a piece of legislation will work as we intended, because we are not infallible. We all have to give up something that we want. I would like to ban all killing of all animals under virtually all circumstances, but of course I am fairly moderate.

Gerald Kaufman: It is extremely important that as we go along, no false impressions are allowed to go on the record. The Minister interrupted my hon. Friend by saying that the first clause refers to a ban. It does no such thing. Clause 1 states:
	Hunting wild mammals with dogs
	A person commits an offence if he hunts a wild mammal with a dog, unless his hunting is
	(a) registered for the purpose of pest control, or
	(b) exempt.
	The long title states that the Bill is to make provision
	about hunting wild mammals with dogs; to prohibit hare coursing; and for connected purposes.
	I cannot understand why the Minister got up a minute or two ago and said that the first clause contained the word ban.

Tony Banks: I think the Minister meant new clause 13, which refers to
	Registered hunting: absolute bans: deer, hares, foxes and terrier-work,
	rather than the Bill.

Alun Michael: I accept my right hon. Friend's comment. I was trying to make the point that the Bill is a ban with exemptions. Clause 1 makes that clear. New clause 13 puts it in explicit terms.

Tony Banks: Exactly, and the exemptions are worrying. We cannot be certain how the registration system will work with regard to foxes, or what the exemptions will mean when someone who has not been attentive to our debates and has not sat through hours of the Committee is making decisions. That is why I am concerned about handing the matter over. I and my colleagues on all sides believe that a total ban is clear and unequivocal. It means exactly what it says: a total ban on the hunting of foxes with dogs, although as I said, we would still leave a registration system in place, if the Government wish to do so.
	If new clause 11 is agreed to, stoats, weasels, wild boar and mink will remain covered by part 2, plus any other quarry species. With foxes in the licensing system, I believe that we will see a continuation, albeit limited, of fox hunting. As I mentioned, guidelines to the registrar and the tribunal could be altered over the years, to allow more and more hunts to operate. With a change of Government, we know how much easier it would be for the Government of the day to reintroduce fox hunting, whereas if there were a total ban, they would have to introduce legislation to effect a reintroduction of fox hunting. A ban would make it more difficult for a Government who were determined to change the regime to make legal something that is illegal, just as we are having difficulty making illegal something that is legal. We should learn from our own experience.
	There are many other arguments that I could address, as my notes indicate, but the point is made and others want to make their arguments. New clause 11 is unequivocal. It states what it will doit will ban fox hunting, which is what we want. We want to test that here in the House tonight, so I deeply regret the fact that the programme motion has been tabled, meaning that if we allow new clause 13 to go through, that will prevent us pressing new clause 11a total banto a Division.
	To address the point made by one of my hon. Friends, the reason we are moving new clause 11 is that we do not believe that new clause 13 will give us the total ban on fox hunting that we promised the people who elected us Labour Members, or fulfil the undertakings given by a number of Opposition Members. So the House should vote against new clause 13 and vote for new clause 11 tonight.

Andrew George: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who put his finger on the pinch point in the debate. The House must decide whether it is prudent to go for what the Minister calls a workable solution of registration, or new clauses 11 and 14, which would be a total ban on hunting the species mentioned. Hon. Members will have to weigh up the legal arguments one way or the other. I shall return to that, but I do not intend to take up too much time as I know that many other hon. Members wish to speak.
	The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) argued that the debate was a waste of parliamentary time. I have said that before. The subject is not at the top of my priorities, but I am content that the Government have decided to give it time. A large number of people in the country have decided that it must be resolved by Parliament, and it must undergo due parliamentary process to resolve it one way or the other. I do not want us to return to the issue time and again. I want it dealt with as quickly as possible. According to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire, I spent 75 or more hours in Committee on the issue. It felt like 100 hours; in fact, it felt like 1,000 hours. I do not want to go over the issue again, as we would be repeating arguments that we have had before. There is sufficient demand to get the issue resolved quickly.
	The procedural pressure this evening is weighing heavily on usthe hon. Member for West Ham illuminated the House as to what is going on in various committees of the parliamentary Labour partyand is acting like a large shadow hanging over the Chamber. In effect, we are not being presented with an equal choice. We could go for something that we know the Government will support and which will go to the Lords on 17 July, content that even if it is held up there, the Parliament Act will be applied and we will end up with a workable Actnot perhaps the one that the hon. Member for West Ham and his supporters want, but something that we know can workor we have a query as to whether the new clauses can be presented in time to ensure that we have a workable Act. Like the hon. Gentleman I have serious concerns about this choice and the way in which it has been presented. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) said, the procedural pressure is bearing heavily on which of the two amendments we choose.

Gerald Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that it is not an equal choice. As he has been present today, he will have seen that we have established beyond doubt or equivocation that if new clause 11 is carried, we can get the Bill through to the House of Lords in time for the Parliament Act to be invoked. The hon. Gentleman referred to what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) has said. If I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope to discuss that point with my hon. Friend.

Andrew George: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, whose interventions and point of order earlier helped to inform the House about this crucial issue. Many are on the horns of a dilemma on this matter.
	7.30 pm
	The new clause may have an impact on farming. The Minister knows that wherever there has been a potential impact on farming, I have raised it with him. He will know that the delayed implementation tomorrow of the animal by-products regulations will result in what we hope will be a form of either national, local or alternative collection schemes for those farmers unable to bury or burn fallen stock on their farms. Some kennels provide that service; they certainly do in my constituency. It would be helpful if the Minister gave a clear indication as to how the proposals will impact on this matter.
	I do not know whether the Minister thinks that by bringing in a registration scheme he can morally and effectively get out of providing compensation for those hunts that are de facto banned. However, if a total ban comes in, there may be an argument that compensation might be due for job losses and other costs. The Minister has ruled that out in relation to his proposed registration scheme. Perhaps if he has an opportunity later, he will address the issue again.
	Since the Committee, I have looked at further evidence and I do not think that any sufficient evidence has been provided that has any material impact on our debate today, whether that is the middle way group's recently published work on the welfare aspects of shooting foxes or any other research.

Lembit �pik: Will my hon. Friend explain why he rejects the finding that wounding rates in connection with shooting are inevitably and consistently higher than wounding rates involved in hunting foxes with dogs?

Andrew George: I did not wish to go into that, but I found the middle way group's research rather an insult to our intelligence, and those marksmen who have looked at it found the whole study rather laughable. Indiscriminate and amateur shooting using inadequate guns that shoot low-calibre shot at a moving target too far away will result inevitably in the maiming of a species. That is what I call blow me over with a feather duster research. I had no idea that that would be the outcome. The fundamental methodology of the research is flawed.

Mark Tami: Will the hon. Gentleman join me in saying that the report insults the sport of shooting?

Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. We can draw one conclusion from the middle way group's research, which I do not think was intendedit presents a good argument for the registration of shooting. In effect, the research says that there is a tremendous amount of indiscriminate, inadequate and unacceptable shooting that perhaps needs to be regulated. If the level of maiming and missing is as suggested by the middle way group, this is a matter of deep concern. The group has raised a difficult issue, which should perhaps be revisited by this House at a future date. Perhaps we will need a registration of shooting Bill.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman is the official spokesman for the Liberal Democrats. Is he now telling us that it is official Liberal Democrat policy to seek the registration of shooting?

Andrew George: I am responding to research that has been presented to me. The middle way group tells us that one cannot shoot and expect not to maim. The hon. Gentleman entertained the Committee on its second day by telling us categoricallyin column 59 on 9 January, I thinkthat his friend went out on his 2,000 acre estate on two consecutive nights and shot and killed, not maimed, 126 foxes. That is remarkable. Presumably, the hon. Gentleman would not wish to besmirch the reputation of his friend by arguing that he shot and maimed those foxes. We were told categorically that they had been shot and killed. Perhaps the middle way group should base its studies on the hon. Gentleman's friend.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to use the figure of 126 killed, but of course many more were maimed.

Andrew George: I should like to see the evidence for that. The fact is, the hon. Gentleman failed to bring it to our attention. Of course, if one sets up parameters in such a way that one is bound to maim foxes, that is the result that will be shown. It was a politically inspired and sponsored study.

Peter Luff: No.

Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman may not like it, but that is the only conclusion to which one can come.

Lembit �pik: I am hesitant to question my hon. Friend when I am sitting so close to himat least rebels on the Government side have the decency to sit a few Benches awaybut is he seriously saying that having a range of targets from 25 yd to 150 yd does not replicate the reality of the situation? In what sense is he questioning the sample of shooters who participated in the research? If he is saying that we chose the wrong people, he needs to explain why he thinks that.

Andrew George: I think that I have explained that adequately already. Many of the trials used inadequate calibre and inadequate shot, with a moving target far too far away.

Peter Luff: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew George: If the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend are arguing that the methodology was adequate to assess the effectiveness of shooting, they are suggesting that people would go out into the countryside and take a positive decision to shoot in circumstances in which the only possible outcome would be to maim an animaland that is certainly something that should be subject to registration.

Rob Marris: It seems that, according to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), the farmer who killed 126 foxes did not do any wounding. He said:
	I asked him how many foxes he thought the farmer killed in the course of those two nights. Most people would say six, 10 or 14. The actual number was 126. The farmer said that he obliterated the fox population, wiped them out and that they will not come back for years.[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 9 January 2003; c. 59.]
	No wounding.

Andrew George: That is very interesting.

Peter Luff: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the only calibre of shot not included in the study was No. 3 and 4 shot, which the British Association for Shooting and Conservation says is its preferred regime for shooting foxes? We have said that we would happily facilitate trials of that shot, but the Government's preferred regime, recommended in parliamentary answers, was tested exhaustively in the study. That is shown in the report, and the hon. Gentleman has a copy. It is not right to say that many shot permutations were not included in the study. That is simply wrong, and I am sure that he will want to correct that unintentionally misleading point.

Andrew George: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the study shows that Government advice is incorrect, I am sure that the Government would take that on board. I am saying that the methodology was flawed. We are waiting for peer review of the study. The only academic analysis that I have seen so far suggests that it is statistically flawed and the target was not based on an adequate anatomical assessment. That raises serious questions, not about fox hunting but about shooting, and perhaps that is something that the middle way group was not expecting.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If hunting is banned, people who have never shot at a fox before will go out with their shotguns, with inadequate shot, and start shooting at foxes, with the net result that there is likely to be wounding. Those people will be so exasperated that they will have to go out and use such weapons.

Andrew George: That is very interesting. I find that argument reprehensible. I know many farmersmany of my family are farmers and landowners. The hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing that farmers will take a bloody-minded attitude, that they will go out in exasperationin an emotional stateand shoot at anything that moves in the countryside. That is clearly an absurd and extremely irresponsible argument. It adds further to my argument that shooting itself may need to be regulated. If that is what people with guns will do, they need to be constrained from doing it.
	Those who are in favour of hunting come back again and again to the argument that it is about liberty and morality. We had a debate on that early in our Committee proceedings, and I am unpersuaded. In fact, one could argue either way about who has the pre-eminent right, those who live in the countryside and know it and its ways intimately, or those who may come to the countryside and demand their pleasure from hunting. The argument about whose liberty needs to be protected is at best inconclusive, and I would argue that the country dweller would indeed have the pre-eminent right. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire claims to be defending liberties, but I am not so sure.
	When questioned earlier, the Minister made it clear that figures from Protect Our Wild Animals suggest that the result of registration would be a total of 100 foxes that may be killed per annum by hunting. That is an infinitesimally small number of foxes, yet the legal system for registration would be enormously complicated. He needs to consider whether that complex registration system and the setting up of the tribunals would really be worth it for only 100 foxes. He has not said in which circumstances he believes that fox hunting would be registered, and whether it would be worth the effort. He seemed to imply that going down the registration route might be preferable to delegating the matter to a court, and we need to review that.
	The key issue is workability, and we want to get something through Parliament as quickly as possible. We need the Bill to be wrapped up and enacted as soon as possible.

Michael Jabez Foster: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), especially when he is able to flush out the ability of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) to make facts up as he goes along, hoping that they will never be disproved later on. Members of the Committee will regret, however, that he did not mention his cousin's home-made humane fox trap, and we do not know how it is faring. Perhaps he will tell me later.
	The new clauses represent a point of balance about where we are going with this legislation. It is a very fine judgment as to what we do for the best. I signed up to new clause 13 for a number of reasons, but primarily because of the commitment in it to ban cub huntingor autumn hunting, as it is now called, because cub hunting sounds a little offensive to the broad mass of the population. Hunters would argue that cub hunting involves the dispersal of cubs into wider parts of the countryside. I could never understand why those who fear a pest that is predating on their livestock would want to disperse it in the first place. If people know where it is, at least they have a chance to control it. And we all know why those cubs are dispersed: to provide more varied territory in which to conduct the sport of hunting with dogs. That is what it is all about.
	Hunters would also argue that cub hunting enables the hounds to be trained: trained in the way in which they pursue the fox and, of course, kill it at the end of the chase. I was keen to make sure that cub hunting was dealt with because it accounts for 40 per cent. of the foxes killed in hunting. That was a great prize worth having on its own: to make sure that we accounted for that 40 per cent.
	If new clause 13 were added to the Bill, we would have incredibly strong legislation with which to tackle hunting with dogs. People would have to prove the need to hunt, which would be a very steep hurdle to clear in itself. We in this House have read lots of evidence on the nature of predation by foxes in particular, andto be fairabout some of the more spurious claims of those who want to continue hunting. If that test were passed, to gain permission to hunt such people would have to prove that it was the most humane way of dealing with the pest. So far as I am concerned, Lord Burns made it absolutely clear that shooting with a rifle and lamping at night is the most humane way of killing a fox, if it has to be killed. There has been no dispute, certainly on the Labour Benches, about the fact that that remains the case.
	The legislation was also going to address the need to minimise the chase. Part of the objection to hunting is the way in which the kill is conducted by the dogs; but as the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has always maintained, the chase itself is fundamentally wrong and abhorrent. We should tackle that as well.

Lembit �pik: What data does the hon. Gentleman have to show that the chase is necessarily cruel?

Michael Jabez Foster: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about the available data. I would suggest that in general in this country, the fox does not have a natural predator. If it has to run because of fear, it will sprint quickly to avoid danger and then hide, usually underground. Hounds are bred for their stamina. They are not sprinting dogs; they are bred to pursue for a long time. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has witnessed what hunts practise, but I have. Before the hunt takes place, the hole is blocked up so that the fox cannot follow its natural instinct, which is to hide. So the fox is forced to run greater distances than it is naturally equipped to run. A hound with stamina following a fox that does not have such stamina means that, in time, the hound will catch the fox. Nature has not designed the fox to escape from the hound in that way. We do not need data to understand how the animals behave in this case.

Gregory Barker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Jabez Foster: I shall make a little progress first and give way shortly.
	If new clause 13 were added, the Bill would be strengthened to cover, as my right hon. Friend the Minister said, some 100 animals, particularly foxes, that could fall foul of this practice. We would achieve some 99 per cent. of what we on the Labour Benches want, but the question is: do we go for the whole lot?

Candy Atherton: What evidence does my hon. Friend have that we are talking about 100 foxes, other than a single suggestion that was made by one person?

Michael Jabez Foster: I accept that the evidence consists simply of judgments by individuals or groups and that it has not been peer reviewed. The number may be greater than that, but on the other hand it may be less. However, I am willing to back the judgment that we are talking about a relatively small difference. Although we would not achieve 99.9 per cent. of what we want, we might well achieve 99 per cent.

Ann Widdecombe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Jabez Foster: I shall make a little more progress first and then give way.
	The test that I look for is: how does this legislation compare with the Foster Bill of 1997? Does it do more than that Bill did? I have to say, hand on heart, that it does. If new clause 13 were added to this Bill, it would be tougher than the Foster Bill.

Ann Widdecombe: I follow the hon. Gentleman's argument that new clause 13 and the current Bill are a vast improvement on the existing situationthat is inarguable. But will he make it clear what new clause 13 offers us that new clause 11 does not? If new clause 11 were accepted and there were a total ban, the whole issue of cubbing would become academic.

Michael Jabez Foster: I understand the right hon. Lady's point and I shall answer it, because that is the decision point on which this debate rests. What is the difference between new clause 11 and new clause 13, and what is the degree of certainty of one or the other's passing through this House and the other place, and getting on to the statute book?

Gregory Barker: rose

Michael Jabez Foster: I promised to give way to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), and I am always a man of my word.

Gregory Barker: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He mentioned a little earlier that the use of high-powered rifles was his preferred form of controlling foxes, but the most widespread form of control in the countryside, in the absence of fox hunting, would be the use of shotguns. Has he taken into account the welfare report that was published post-Burns? It is the first detailed research into wounding rates, which we all agreed was severely lacking when were in Committee. The report states:
	We consider that under common field conditions, for every fox shot dead with a shotgun, at least the same number of foxes are wounded and many of these are never found.
	Has the hon. Gentleman really taken into account the welfare implications of a dramatic increase in the use of shotguns in the countryside against foxes?

Michael Jabez Foster: I am grateful for that intervention. I should clarify one point: it was Lord Burns who said that shooting with a rifle was the most humane method, and I happen to agree with that. However, I should urge caution on the hon. Gentleman, who is leading the debate in the direction of the possible registration of shootingto which the hon. Member for St. Ives alluded. I am sure that that is not what the hon. Gentleman wants, but if evidence is continually provided of people going into the countryside and blasting away willy-nilly at anything that moves with inappropriate weaponry, such behaviour is clearly wrong.

Kate Hoey: My hon. Friend talks of the danger of people demanding that shooting be stopped, but is not the policy of the International Fund for Animal Welfare and of members of the League Against Cruel Sports that once they get their hunting ban, the next thing will be a ban on shooting, and then fishing?

Michael Jabez Foster: I have no remit to speak on behalf of the two organisations mentioned. I speak for myself in this House, and I have absolutely no intention of pursuing any possible ban on shooting or angling.

Andrew George: rose

Gregory Barker: rose

Michael Jabez Foster: I want to make some progress on the choice between new clause 13 and new clause 11. I went on the record yesterday evening, on that most excellent programme The Westminster Hour, as saying that I wanted to vote in favour of new clause 13, and I made it clear why. I wrote to colleagues earlier today to say that in my view, it is necessary to vote for new clause 13 because of the risk of not getting the legislation in time.

David Winnick: I have the greatest respect for what my hon. Friend has done on this issue; we all know of the abuse that he has suffered. But is it not true that if new clause 13 were accepted, there would be endless arguments over the years about registration, exemption and so on? As my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) said, a future Government of a different colour could use that provision to extend exemptions, whereas a ban would be bound to end a debate that has gone on for years. That is why, in my view, new clause 11 should be supported.

Michael Jabez Foster: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's words. Yes, I have a nice file in my filing cabinet titled abuse and death threats. In all honesty, however, I do not believe that the debate will end in the near future. We have already heard from Conservative Members that, if a Conservative Government were re-elected at the next general election, they would look to facilitate a Bill to bring back hunting with dogs. The debate is not going to end, but I want to make a little more progress on where in my judgment we have reached.
	We have heard some highly significant information today. When I signed up to new clause 13, I did not knowand no one could have known at the timethe order in which the debate would be run or the order in which the votes would be taken. What I feareda fear shared with colleagueswas losing the 99.9 per cent. of what we had achieved so far. I feared losing it to a recommittaland the impression given at the end of last week was that that would mean not sorting the legislation out in the summer. If we went into the autumn, who could know what events might take place, and I was conscious of the month-long period in which the Bill would have to be in the House of Lords if, as sometimes happens, we had to use the Parliament Act. On account of that uncertainty, I made the judgment that new clause 13 is the bird in the hand.
	Having now heard the Minister's reassurances about the recommittal and how speedily it can be done and having heard earlier this afternoon from Mr. Speaker about the significance of the calendar month as opposed to the sitting month of the House, my judgment has changed. Because of the assurances and comments that I have mentioned, I no longer feel that it is necessary to support new clause 13. I can tell the House, as I have said before, that if new clause 13 were to fall, I always intended to vote for new clause 11. Because of the assurances given by my right hon. Friend and by Mr. Speaker, there is no longer a need to vote for new clause 13 and every need to finish the issue off and vote for new clause 11.

Ann Widdecombe: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his courageous change of mind. It is always extremely difficult, when one has signed up to something and publicly promoted it, to change course. I congratulate him on showing the same courage tonight as he showed when he introduced his own Bill to a huge amount of disapprobation.
	I have made the argument against hunting too often in this House to want to repeat it in any detail tonight. I would rather concentrate on the relative merits of new clauses 11 and 13. I very much appreciate what the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) said, but he was sitting in the Chamber listening to the exchange of assurances earlier, whereas many of his hon. Friends will not have had that benefit and might well be thinking that new clause 13 is a bird in the hand and that new clause 11 still represents birds in the bush. It is crucial that between now and the vote, the hon. Gentleman ensures that everyone has the benefit of understanding the effects of the reassurances that we have received from the Minister and from Mr. Speaker. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be busily occupied in that, so if he wishes to leave during my speech, I shall have no objection whatever.

Gerry Steinberg: Now that we can see how circumstances have turned out, does the right hon. Lady agree that the Minister should now withdraw his new clause?

Ann Widdecombe: I have no hesitation in supporting the call for the Minister to withdraw his new clause, but I equally have no hesitation in predicting that he will not do so, so I need not spend time attempting to persuade him.
	Whichever of the new clauses is passed tonight, if the Bill comes to fruition, we shall be living in a more civilised and kinder society than the one in which we live now. I would be the first to accept that it is necessary to kill foxes, and the first to accept that an argument of necessity can be made for killing other species. However, at the beginning of the 21st century, the fact that people should want to make a sport and gain pleasure out of it absolutely beggars belief.

James Gray: Am I right to interpret what my right hon. Friend has said as meaning that she is less concerned about animal welfare than with human behaviour? She objects to people gaining pleasure out of fox hunting as a sport. It is nothing to do with killing foxes, but all about human behaviour. Is that correct?

Ann Widdecombe: I have never said that. If my hon. and usual Friend had waited for me to get to the next sentence, he would have heard the answer to the question that he has just raised. I have always said that the chase, as opposed to the kill, is particularly objectionable.

Gregory Barker: rose

Ann Widdecombe: I find it doubly objectionable that people should make sport out of it, but even if they did not, I would still object to hunting on the ground of the chase. What I said was that it beggars belief that at the beginning of the 21st century people can make sport out of killing an animal. I did not say that that determined my vote or my attitude towards hunting; merely that it added an extra dimension of horror.

Gregory Barker: rose

Ann Widdecombe: There seems to be a jack-in-a-box behind me, so I will give way.

Gregory Barker: Is my right hon. Friend against all blood sports, including shooting and fishing?

Ann Widdecombe: We are debating hunting today[Interruption.] If my hon. Friend had ears to hear, I have said in the past that I am not against shooting, which aims for a quick, clean kill; nor am I against fishing when, as I have always said, one can eat the end result. But today we are discussing hunting and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would be the first to call me to order if I started a discourse on other sports.
	I wish specifically to address the difference between new clause 11 and new clause 13. I have a great deal of respect for my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), but I do not believe that it is wise for our party to pledge that, if hunting is banned, we will devote parliamentary time to restoring it. The shadow Leader of the House made an extremely persuasive case about what a waste of time it all was. If people do not have the appetite to spend time banning the sport, when Parliament has finally reached a conclusion and banned it, they will have even less appetite for spending time to restore it. We should be mighty careful before we go to the electorate with that proposition.
	I want to concentrate now on the relative merits of new clause 11 and new clause 13. The first point is directly relevant to what I have just said and echoes what was said by the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks). If we have a licensing system, it will be easy to use it to overturn what the House decides tonight; whereas if we have a ban and the sport becomes illegal, we will have to legislate de novo, which is a much more difficult proposition. One of the reasons why I veer towards new clause 11 rather than new clause 13 is that new clause 13 does not close the door on something that the House has for many years regularly voted to close the door on.
	The second reason is that I do not trust registration and I do not trust licensing bodies. Although Labour Members will not have had much sympathy with the long fight that I have put up in the House against abortion, I think that they will admit that the law as envisaged in 1967 and the law that it became in practice by 1990 were completely different. Once one passes licensing over to the judgment of people who will be appointed by Government, one can end up having very loose interpretations, even of an issue that Parliament believes in good faith that it has drawn very tightly. That is another reason why I do not believe that new clause 13 does the job.

Adrian Flook: Some moments ago, my right hon. Friend referred to the fact that Parliament would speak on the issue and make its voice heard, but, bearing in mind her great history of having a different view on the issue from me, does she not believe that Parliament also includes the other place? What does she think it might say if the Bill bans hunting outright?

Ann Widdecombe: We must have the courage of our convictions in this House and worry about dealing with the other place at such time as it makes its views known.
	My third reason for preferring new clause 11 to new clause 13 is that this is the best chance that we have ever had to get an absolute ban. It will be a mark of shame for all of us who have fought for it if we give in now, when we are at the door of achieving it, to some shoddy compromise that a blackmailing Government have tried to impose on their own Back Benchers. It is utterly crucial that Labour Members have huge courage tonight and do not let themselves be packed like weeds beneath the compost of the Prime Minister's timidity. We must go for it in the way that we have never had an opportunity to do in the past. Let our voice be heard tonight. Let us send up to the other end of the corridor what we actually believe in, not what we believe it smiles on.

David Winnick: Look at the faces of Conservative Members.

Ann Widdecombe: Oh, they will not be happy. I know that. Do not worry about it.
	What we have to do tonight is to bring to fruition all past efforts, efforts even before the hon. Member for Worcester introduced his Bill. We can all remember free vote after free vote, which said ban this barbarism. Tonight we have that chance. Let us really go for it. Let us do what we want to do. Let us not be blackmailed either by fear of their lordships or fear of the Government. It is not worth being blackmailed. This is our best chance for years. If we give it up, ours is the shame, not hunting's.

Gerald Kaufman: I pay tribute to the four hon. Members who have spoken from the Back Benches so far. All four have dedicated themselves to this issue for many years, and there is no doubt that they have become intensely knowledgeable on the subject. Each one of them deserves the thanks of the House of Commons.
	I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), not simply because he has announced a change of mind here this evening, but because he started this off after Labour came to office in 1997 and because the Labour Government attempted to discourage him from using his chance in a private Member's Bill. However, he went through with it. He blazed the trail and we would not be where we are this evening if he had not started that, although that is not in any way to discount the incredible work of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), or the courage of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe).
	My right hon. Friend the Minister both on Second Readingheaven knows, as long ago as 16 December last yearand again today put his view that he is presenting a perfect Bill. By his criteria, it is perfect. He has invented the criteria and then said, By my criteria, which I have invented, I have brought you the best Bill it is possible to bring. He has two criteria: one is cruelty, one is utility. What he has not mentionedhe is a South Walian, so I am surprised that he did notis morality. There is an issue of morality relating to what we want to do about the issue.
	My right hon. Friend has created criteria for a Bill that suits him but is not in conformity with the Labour party manifesto. I was not only elected on that manifesto but campaigned very prominently on the issue in my constituency because it is one that I and many of my constituents care about. I believe that many of the people who voted for me at the last election did so because of the pledge in the Labour party manifesto.
	What did the manifesto say? It said:
	The House of Commons elected in 1997 made clear its wish to ban fox-hunting.
	That was on the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester. The manifesto went on:
	We will . . . enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on this issue.
	The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald is absolutely right. Today is the day. If we do not seize this moment, it will not come back.
	Those of us who have studied the history of other legislation to deal with cruelty to animals will know that it took the House of Commons 35 years to ban bull baiting. Its record on issues of decency has not been very good over the years, whether issues relating to cruelty against animals or to sexual behaviour. It is always belated, but today we have the opportunity.
	I came into the House just over 33 years ago. One of the first things that I did was to work with my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) to get a ban on hare coursing. It has taken 33 years to get to that point. I am not going to give up the opportunity of doing what I have tried to do in the House of Commons for a third of a century through being talked out of it by amendments that do not deliver what we are asking for.
	I wish that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) were here so that I could put the point to her, but my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester was right to say that new clause 13 maybut nobody can be surealleviate part of the evil with which we are trying to deal. I repeat that it is impossible to be sure. What is for sure is that if we pass new clause 11enforcement may be a problem; I do not argue with thatwe will not be calculating on exceptions or trying to add up sums: we will have done it. No law is ever perfectthere is a law against murder, but people still commit the crimebut new clause 11 will provide as good a law as we are liable to get in all our political lifetimes if we want to ban hunting, and I am sure that many hon. Members do.
	When the Labour manifesto talked about a wish to ban fox hunting, it did not sayit was carefully drawn up and could have said this if it had been wishedthat we wanted to hand over fox hunting, in whole or in part, to a registrar, unanswerable to the House of Commons, and to a tribunal, unanswerable to the House of Commons. It said that we wanted to deal with it as a Parliament. Nor am I alone in saying that; the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality said it on Second Reading:
	It is Parliament that has to take the decision.[Official Report, 16 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 581.]
	Parliament will have its opportunity in an hour and a half to make that decision.
	My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said in this House:
	I am opposed to fox hunting.[Official Report,16 January 2001; Vol. 361, c. 344.]
	He did not say, I want to alleviate fox hunting. He did not say, I want to make fox hunting registrable. He said, I am opposed. On Radio 4, on 30 September 1999, he said:
	I am opposed to hunting.
	He did not say, I want to alleviate it and make it less horrible. He said, I want to be rid of it.

Nicholas Soames: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that those of us who support hunting entered into detailed consultation, held by the Minister of State at Portcullis House, on the basis that a fair and sensible system would be produced that would do precisely what he argues against? It was on that basis that a great deal of work was done in Portcullis House, which, allegedly, played a part in framing the Bill that many of us spent many hours dealing with in Committee. What the right hon. Gentleman proposesI hope that he understands the deep and abiding resentment that will exist if it goes aheadis diametrically contrary to the assurances that the countryside was given by the Minister of State on how this matter would be handled.

Gerald Kaufman: That is between the Minister and the countryside. This is the House of Commons, and it is the House of Commons that must make the decision. The manifesto on which I went before the electorate in Gorton, as did my right hon. and hon. Friends all over the country, did not say that we would enter into consultation in Portcullis House. It said that we would give the House of Commons an opportunity to ban fox hunting. That is what we have tonight. With all respect to my constituents, whom I love and who, by definition, are the most intelligent people in the country, I do not believe that all of them are totally acquainted with what Portcullis House is and what goes on there. I accept that the hon. Gentleman takes an entirely different view from mine, and I respect him for it. However, I am asking the House of Commons to fulfil the Labour party manifesto. It is for others who do not subscribe to that manifesto to make their own points.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs put out a statement over the weekend. She is a good personal friend of mine, and she invites me to speak on her behalf in her constituency at every general election, although whether she will do so next time, I do not know. She said:
	No Bill on a simple ban has ever been thought to be workable.
	The Prime Minister thought it was workable; that is what he said. The Labour party manifesto, on which I supported my right hon. Friend in Derby when I went to speak for her, said it was workable. She alsoa clever piece of phraseologysaid:
	On Monday, MPs on a free vote, can choose between what is simple to explain and what is simple to enforce.
	In fact, what is in the Bill is not simple to enforce. It requires the convincing of a registrar and a hunting tribunal. What is in new clause 13 requires the most rigid policing one can imagine, to maintain a ban on the categories set out in that provision. Okay, new clause 11 will never be 100 per cent. enforceable, just as no law in this land has ever been 100 per cent. enforceable, but, by heavens, it is the best that we are ever going to have.
	What does the Bill do? When my right hon. Friend the Minister introduced the Bill on 16 December, he and others quoted from Burns. They said that the Bill would ban 2 per cent. of hunting with dogs[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. Less discussion should be going on in the House. If hon. Members wish to discuss something else, they should leave the Chamber.

Gerald Kaufman: I am baffled that hon. Members are not spellbound by what I am saying and that they need to entertain themselves in some other way.
	When my right hon. Friend the Minister introduced the Bill and asked us to support it, what did it declare illegal? The killing of 160 red deerobviously, I am in favour of making that illegaland the killing of about 250 hares a year through hare coursing. That was it. As a result of an amendment in Standing Committee and after pressure from my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester, who referred to the matter on Second Reading, the Government added 1,650 hares. Of course, anyone who knows anything about such matters knows that hare coursing is exceptionally cruel, but the Burns figures show that registered packs are estimated to kill between 21,000 and 25,000 foxes a year. We do not know how many of those foxes new clause 13 would save.
	Whom are the Government trying to please by introducing this Bill rather than one comparable to the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester? We know whom they are trying to appease, because we saw the countryside march last September. The League Against Cruel Sports commissioned a MORI poll of the people taking part in the march. What was the political allegiance of the people taking part in the countryside march? Eighty-two per cent. were Conservative and 4 per cent. were Labour, so my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will certainly not offend the middle ground if he comes to the House to vote for new clause 11, because there is no middle ground on the issue. About 6 or 8 per cent. of the marchers were Liberal Democrats, so I do not know whom my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Minister are trying to win over.

David Winnick: Is not it interesting that a poll commissioned by the Countryside Alliance in March 2002 found that about 25 per cent. of people said that the Government should drop the hunting proposals, but 48 per cent. felt that the Government should insist on a ban? Even among those in the countryside, there is undoubtedly a majority in favour of what we want to be accomplished.

Gerald Kaufman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for adding to the polling evidence.

Lembit �pik: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Gerald Kaufman: Yes, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman. We met on the Dimbleby programme and I got quite a good postbag afterwards.

Lembit �pik: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman got my letters.
	The point may be slightly peripheral to the main debate, but if the right hon. Gentleman accepts the figures given by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick), is he really saying that a minority48 per cent. of the publicis sufficient to justify a ban on these activities? More to the point, what does he say to the two in three vets who oppose a ban on hunting with dogs?

Gerald Kaufman: I may be wrong, but I think that the Liberal Democrats would be quite pleased if they had 48 per cent. support among the electorate for anything whatever that they proposed.
	I want to return, however, to what the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald said. My right hon. Friend the Minister in his speech on Second Reading said:
	We cannot go on debating this subject year after year after year without a conclusion.[Official Report, 16 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 582.]
	I tell the House that, if we do not pass new clause 11 tonight, that is exactly what we will do because many hon. Members will not let go until we get the ban promised in the Labour party manifesto. So the only way we will end these constant debates is to pass new clause 11, incorporate it into the Bill and send it to the House of Lords. The fact is that this is the best chance that any of us sitting in the House of Commons have ever had, or will ever get, for a ban. The Government have made it clear that we will get it procedurally if we vote for it, so let us go for it.

Peter Atkinson: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), in his usual way, dismissed the accusations about why people in the countryside are so angry about the Bill, but then, illogically, started to quote public opinion surveys on hunting. May I tell him that people in the countryside are so angry about the Bill because I cannot remember any Bill that has been attended by so much dishonesty and duplicity by the Government in the history of my time in Parliament?
	I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I should have drawn the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests at the outset of my speech.
	May I further tell the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton that people in the countryside have spent thousands of pounds and thousands of hours preparing cases and coming to give evidence at Portcullis House on the ground that what they were saying would be treated honestly and with respect? The Minister indicated, when he first started on this voyage, that he would make judgments based on science, logical conclusions and an understanding of what goes on in the countryside, but, at the end of day, judgments have now been made on the basis of the mood in the parliamentary labour party. Today, new clause 13 appears on the Order Paper, and what is it? It is the result of a shabby political compromise with the RSPCA.

Nicholas Soames: May I point out to my hon. Friend that there has come into my hands a copy of the parliamentary brief issued by the Minister to his colleagues in the Labour party? I have obtained a copy for greater accuracy. In the penultimate paragraph, in possibly the culminating phrase of a long catalogue of deceit on his part, he says:
	On Monday we have at long last the opportunity to fulfil our pledge to ban the cruel sport of hunting with dogs.
	That shows all the charade of the six months' consultation, wrapped up in the deceit that is being practised on the people of Britain tonight.

Peter Atkinson: There we have it. That is exactly it, and when the Minister spoke at a meeting of about 200 to 300 hunting and shooting supporters in my constituency, he clearly indicated to them that he would keep an open mind, and they went away partially reassured that he would do so. When we see what he has finally come up with, we can understand why they feel so betrayed.

Hugo Swire: Now that the Minister's base motives have been exposed for what they always werehe is at least consistent in thatwhat will my hon. Friend say to the fishermen and shooting people whom the Minister addressed? What hope can he give them that the Minister will not behave towards them as he is behaving towards the hunting fraternity?

Peter Atkinson: That is a good point that needs answering. The people who hunt, shoot and fish will have seen what has happened in the months leading up to this stage in the Bill's consideration and will know full well what is in store for them. If they believe that hunting, shooting and fishing are safe, they should learn a lesson from this case.

Elliot Morley: It is not fair to cast aspersions on my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality, who is not in the Chamber at present. The brief that was just read out is entirely consistent with the argument for applying the principle of cruelty in relation to the ban. It is also entirely consistent on an issue for which a free vote has been promised for the views of the House of Commons to be taken into account as well. There is nothing inconsistent in that, and my right hon. Friend has been entirely committed, straightforward and honest in all his dealings on this issue.

Peter Atkinson: With the greatest respect to the Ministerwe have crossed swords for a long time and often, I hope, with good humourwe are not going to believe that. Anybody who met the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality outside this place and heard what he said would have thought that he was approaching the issue with a reasonably open mind. However, events show that his mind was closed to start with, but that it has changed as the mood of the parliamentary Labour party has changed.

Lembit �pik: Perhaps this point will help the hon. Gentleman return to the main thread in his remarks. He referred to the massive preparations that many in the pro-hunting community made to give evidence in good faith to the representatives on the pseudo-Select Committee in Portcullis House and elsewhere, so does he not agree that it is a matter of concern and perhaps very telling that the hon. Members for West Ham (Mr. Banks) and for Worcester (Mr. Foster) indicated that they did not need data to come to a decision? The hon. Member for West Ham went as far as to describe the decision as one related to passion and to prejudice. That is hardly a good basis for legislation.

Peter Atkinson: The hon. Gentleman is right. Evidence was piled high, witnesses were called and scientific research was carried out all in the name of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that, at the end of the day, it was simply a matter of passion and prejudice.

Lembit �pik: In fairness to the hon. Member for West Ham, I should correct what I said. He referred to passion and subjectivity and not to passion and prejudice. However, if one adds passion and subjectivity, one gets prejudice.

Peter Atkinson: The hon. Gentleman has slightly lost me on that one, but I shall read the record.
	One of the points about new clause 13 are the words that the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality said at the start of his speech. I wrote them down and I hope that I have got them more or less right. He said that, in some circumstances, hunting causes significantly less suffering than other methods of control. If that is what he believes, why is he saying that one cannot hunt between 1 August and 1 November? Where is the logic to introducing a close season when he accepts that, in certain circumstances, it is necessary to control foxes by the use of hounds because that causes less suffering?
	Imposing a close season is done for no other reason than to protect a species, but new clause 13 will not protect a species. It will simply stop an activityhuntingduring that time. This ludicrous and illogical new clause is the result of a shabby deal with the RSPCA and says that one can snare foxes between 1 August and 1 November, but not hunt them. Where is the logic in that? The research carried out by hunting organisations shows that the foxes killed in the period of what is now known as autumn hunting are not necessarily young foxes. Up to nearly half of them are adult foxes. Any land manager or gamekeeper will say that is when they put pheasants in release pens and that it is an important time for fox control. To close off a useful method of control in that time is utterly illogical.

James Gray: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Does he not agree that one of the oddest aspects of new clause 13 is that it will still make it theoretically strictly legal to kill newly born foxes in May, June and July but that it will make it illegal to kill them in August, September and October when they are grown up?

Peter Atkinson: That is right. Although it might not be pleasant, if I were a gamekeeper or farmer, I would say that the only way to control fox numbers is to shoot lactating vixens. In that way, the cubs die. That is the way to reduce fox numbers. I would deplore that, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would. However, if we leave fox control to inexperienced people, such activities will happen.
	I tell the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) that farmers do not have lamps and high-power rifles. Some have shotguns and some do not. I have an upland constituency in which there are sheep farms. In one area, all the tenant farmers of the Ministry of Defence elect the local hunt as their pest controller. If the hunt did not exist, the farmers would have to control foxes despite having little time or expertise. The methods used would vastly increase foxes' suffering compared with that caused by traditional hunting methods.

Gregory Barker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that there are few high-power rifles in the community. In my part of East Sussex, the general population would be absolutely horrified by the thought of a proliferation of high-power rifles, especially because no settlement, road, village, farmhouse or livestock are more than a short distance from anywhere that could be a vantage point for the firing of such a rifle. The prospect is grotesque.

Peter Atkinson: My hon. Friend makes a good point that brings me on to deer control on Exmoor. Bodmin moor has been mentioned and it has a completely different landscape to Exmoor. Exmoor is a small patchwork of land with high hedges and many wooded areas. It would be extremely dangerous to use a rifle in such an area. Over the years, small patches of land have been created, often with different owners, which is a different type of land ownership to that in Scotland, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray).
	If a deer were shot and wounded in a field in Exmoor, it would move to another field in no time at all. That field would not necessarily belong to the same person as that in which the deer was shot, so anyone who tried to shoot it again would be guilty of an offence. That is why the overarching control carried out by the three packs of deer hounds in the south-west has resulted in an extremely healthy deer population.

Hugo Swire: My hon. Friend makes a good point that is substantiated by the situation on Dartmoor. The military has to be extremely careful when firing weapons because of the rightful proliferation of those who wish to walk in Dartmoor and experience its natural beauty. Can he imagine a whole lot of farmers being released on to Dartmoor and loosing off against foxes while ramblers were all over the place? The idea beggars belief.

Peter Atkinson: I can predict what would happen on Exmoor without staghounds. Farmers would have to get together to operate a system of deer control. A red deer is a hungry animal but it has another characteristic: it is valuable. The venison from a red deer is worth much more than most of the livestock that Exmoor farmers rear commercially. The temptation to organise deer drives to convert a pest into the valuable commodity of venison would be overwhelming. I assure hon. Members that within a year or two of the end of deer hunting on Exmoor, there would be a decline in the number and quality of deer and a change to methods of deer management.
	Many of my hon. Friends and I put our names to an amendment that the Government have taken from us relating to hares and coursing. It is disappointingand also wrongthat an argument cannot be made to show that utility is attached to coursing. If we are to have a licensing system, the registrar should consider coursing and deer hunting in the same light as fox hunting. A strong argument for why coursing has utility is that it preserves many hares. Some hon. Members and, I fear, many people in the country think that a hare is simply let out of a box during organised coursing. The hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) will know that that is not the case. All hares at a coursing meeting are wild. Between 600 and 700 healthy hares are required to hold a coursing meeting on such a scale as the Waterloo cup. Much game management is required to encourage hares to live on an estate of such a size wildly and freely. If the activity were banned, the impetus for that would be gone.
	There are parts of East Anglia in which hares are usually numerous. However, one will hardly see a hare on estates in which coursing no longer takes place, but there are masses on estates in which coursing occurs, such as those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham). That represents a good argument to support the utility of coursing.

Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend is right. The Swaffham coursing club courses more than 10,000 acres of my constituency, and there are a large number of hares on those acres. On the other side of the River Ouse, in fen country, one hardly sees a hare.

Peter Atkinson: That is right. One hardly sees hares in areas where coursing used to take place, like parts of Northumberland and Durham, which used to have the famous Durham union club. That is a great pity.

Russell Brown: Hare coursing has taken place in my constituency for many years. Hares are brought in from Yorkshire because of the shortage.

Peter Atkinson: That is not the case. I know the estate where that coursing meeting occurs. The historical reason for moving hares is as part of game management. It is possible to improve the breeding stock by introducing new blood into it. That is what the coursing world has done for many years. In my view, that is good game management and something to be proud of, not something to condemn.

Colin Pickthall: Is it not also the case that, from time to time, hares are specifically brought into coursing areas where there is a shortage in order to be coursed, not to improve bloodstock? It is not possible to improve bloodstock if the hare has been coursed and killed.

Peter Atkinson: The hon. Gentleman has attended the Waterloo cup for a few years, at least at a distance, because I have seen him. He should know that that is not the case. If a hare is put down in a place with which it is unfamiliar, it will be uncourseable. It will run around in circles and be completely lost. It will not test the dogs properly, which is what people who like coursing want it to do. The object of coursing is to test greyhounds, not to kill hares. If a hare does not know where it is, it will be an unsatisfactory hare. Hare coursers do not do what the hon. Gentleman suggests, but they do introduce hares for breeding purposes.
	I do not want to get into a long discourse on the nuances of coursing, although I would be happy to do so. It is shame that hare coursers cannot make the same case of utility. Whether the registrar agrees with their case is neither here nor there, but they should at least have the opportunity to make that case.
	We have come to a sad moment for Conservative Members. There are two choices: new clause 13, which is death by 1,000 cuts for the countryside, or new clause 11, which is an outright and total ban. I hope that their lordships give the Bill the savaging it richly deserves.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are running out of time and there have only been five Back-Bench contributions so far. If hon. Members bear that in mind, we might manage to include everyone who wants to speak.

Kate Hoey: I do not know how different my constituents are from those of other Labour Members, but I have one of the largest surgeries, with 35 to 45 people attending, and I have yet to come across someone who has raised this issue with me. I want to put the debate in context: it is not a priority issue for people in my constituency. That is not to say that some of my constituents do not want to ban hunting, but it certainly does not warrant the time that we have spent on it over the past five years. It is however deplorable that if we are to discuss the Bill, we have so little time in which to do it that we will fail to reach many of the new clauses and amendments.
	When the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality spoke on Second Reading, I genuinely thought it was an attempt, in his words, to find something
	that will stand the test of time.[Official Report, 16 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 571.]
	He said that he would stick to principle and evidence, but he has not stood by his principles. It seems that the Minister applied no logic to the way in which he treated the Bill in Committee. If hunting is to be subject to utility tests, all types of hunting should be subject to the same utility tests. Without ever really looking at the evidence, we said that deer hunting and hare coursing should be banned. In Committee, we introduced extra bans, which were supported by the Minister, even though he had said that he would consider the evidence and apply the test of cruelty every time a ban was proposed.
	We have got into the absurd situation whereby we are to ban the use of terriers underground, but the Minister hopes that an amendment will be passed, perhaps in the other place, to allow gamekeepers to continue to use terriers. There is no logic to that. It is nonsensical to say that it is okay for gamekeepers to use terriers underground to flush out foxes, but not for farmers, people who are hunting or landowners who need to dispatch a fox. That shows that, as we know deep down, the Bill is not about animal welfare. I wish it were about animal welfare. If the House really cared about that, we would be discussing a huge number of other issues, such as battery farming. Despite the efforts of Labour Members to promote those issues, however, we never get time to discuss the real cruelty that goes on, such as the way in which we allow horses to be exported to Europe and killed using appalling methods.
	Nobody takes an interest in such issues because there is a zealotry about hunting, and about people in red coats taking part in a sport that has been around for a long time. Some Labour Members, and a few Opposition Members, would not accept any evidence that favoured hunting by people in red coats. They might go along with the idea of hunting by people in Wales or the idea of an occasional fell hunt. In fact, however, if the Bill is passed, the gun packs will be affected, and there will be little chance of such hunting taking place.
	What do the people who supposedly care about animal welfare want to take place instead of hunting? They want to allow practices such as lamping. Lamping can work in some situations. However, in a 2003 report called The Futility of Upland Hunting, the League Against Cruel Sports interviewed people who go out lamping. They tried to pretend that lamping is a serious method of killing foxes and that no one would dare enjoy it. However, the interviews showed that lampers were indulging in a sport, not simply killing foxes; they were out to have a good time. They described how they enjoyed going out with a spot lamp at night, looking for foxes' eyes glowing. Of course, there have been many incidents of domestic animals being killed in lamping.

Nicholas Soames: Does the hon. Lady also accept that many people go out to shoot rabbits using precisely the same method, and yet rabbiting is apparently to be entirely exempt from a ban, as is ratting?

Kate Hoey: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Bill is inconsistent. Why is it not okay to hunt hares when it is okay to hunt rabbits? That shows that the Bill has been devised by people who take an attitude of zealotry towards those who hunt. They are opposed to hunting, and they are not prepared to listen.
	I want to pay tribute to the hundreds of women who spent last night and all day in Parliament square. If only some of my hon. Friends had had the decency to go and talk to those young, middle-aged and elderly women who live in the countryside and know what this is all about, rather than treating them with contempt.
	The saddest thing about this whole process is that there has been no listening at all. At Portcullis House, everyone involved in hunting produced a huge amount of work and put in great deal of effort, but it was all simply ignored because some of the facts did not fit in with the Minister's or the Government's intentions.

Edward Garnier: I have had occasion in previous debates to thank the hon. Lady, who is my London Member of Parliamentin fact, I think she represents quite a few hon. Membersfor the position that she has, very bravely, taken on this issue. I asked the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality about his wonderful golden thread. During parliamentary Labour party discussions about the Bill, has the hon. Lady been able to discern the golden thread, or does she think that it exists only in the Minister's mind and has no real connection with the philosophy behind the Bill?

Kate Hoey: There could only have been a golden thread if the utility test had been made much wider to encompass wildlife management and conservation, but those concepts have been left out of the utility test, so it is not a real utility test at all.
	Let me talk about some of the other methods that we are expected to go along with because fox hunting is so cruel. Poison baits

Michael Jabez Foster: Before the hon. Lady leaves the issue of collateral damage to cats and dogs caused by lamping, is she interested to know that I, who represent a rural constituency, hear from my constituents that their cats and dogs are often the subject of the hunt's fury in their own gardens? How can that be dealt with?

Kate Hoey: In fact, I did not mention catsI would not dream of mentioning cats, as I do not particularly like them. Clearly such incidents are traumatic for the people concerned. However, I am absolutely clear that the middle way group licensing proposals and the regulation that already exists could be used to ensure that the hunts involved in such incidents have to make reparations and ensure that it does not happen again. That is not a reason to ban hunting. Accidents happen in every activity.
	To return to poison baits, DEFRA is currently testing a poison known as T3327 for use in poison bait for possible use against foxes during a rabies outbreak. In tests, caged foxes convulsed, retched and showed obvious signs of distress before death occurredbut that is all right to those who want a ban. If it is not being done by people in red coats, it is fine.
	In Committee, the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) talked a lot about live cages as the way to trap foxes. It is interesting that the National Federation of Badger Groups is totally opposed to live cages, saying that they inflict a brutal death on badgers. Presumably, however, it is all right to be brutal to foxesthey do not matter.

Andrew George: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to mentionfor the fourth time, I believemy cousin's live cage on his poultry farm in the middle of a deeply rural area. It has often been argued that live cages can only be used in an urban setting, but that is clearly not true. As far as I am concerned, live cages offer the most humane way to dispatch foxes. If she wants to come to my constituency, meet my cousin and see the live cage in action, with the fox dispatched with a single shot on every occasion, I will be happy to show her.

Kate Hoey: The hon. Gentleman extended the same invitation to members of the Committee. If any of them took advantage of it, perhaps I can talk to them about it. However, it cannot be true that live cage traps are humane for use on foxes and mink but inhumane for use on badgers. The alternatives to hunting

Elliot Morley: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Kate Hoey: I will give way to the Minister in my own time.
	People who are seriously concerned about animal welfare and cruelty cannot possibly believe that any of the alternatives to hunting are better than what is happening at the moment.

Elliot Morley: I want to correct my hon. Friend on the issue of live traps and badgers. The National Federation of Badger Groupsit is a fine organisationis entitled to its views. However, in relation to the badger control experiments that are supervised by Professor Burns, there is an independent welfare audit of cage trapping. That audit has come to the conclusion that it is a humane method if it is carried out properly. Overall, cage trapping is recognised by all who are involved in pest control or wildlife management as one of the most humane ways of trapping and dispatching animals.

Kate Hoey: I would rather listen to fox hunters and see things for myself, and I went to see what happened on Exmoor. On this issue, I would rather listen to the National Federation of Badger Groups than perhaps the contents of an independent analysis which I have not read, or the Minister. I know that my hon. Friend has a long-standing view and wants to ban fox hunting. Presumably he will be in a position this evening to urge his right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for his new clause, although I know that he would like to be arguing that they should vote for new clause 11.
	The Government said that they wanted to win support for a new way of handling this contentious issue. However, I think that they have failed to win the consent of the people who are being legislated against and whom he is seeking to legislate upon. I do not believe that the Minister will ever obtain his goal of securing legislation that will stand the test of time by going down the route that is being pursued. If one of the options is adopted this evening and if the Government try to force through the Parliament Act, it would be outrageous.

Paul Holmes: The Bill, as amended in Committee, bans all hare and deer hunting with dogs. It is highly likely that the House will pass new clause 11, thereby adding the fox to that list. Of the existing hunting packs, that would leave only the mink hunts to be able to attempt to register on grounds of least cruelty or utility. On those grounds, I think that the case against mink hunting with dogs is as clear cut as that against the hunting of hare, deer or foxes with dogs.
	I accept the need to control mink and, if possible, to eradicate them. They are an alien species that were introduced artificially to the United Kingdom, as were many other species such as the grey squirrel or the pheasant, which no one seeks to eradicate, or the coypu or the muskrat, which have been eradicated.
	The evidence is clear that hunting with dogs will not achieve either the eradication or control of mink, and certainly not without unnecessary cruelty. Mink hunting with dogs therefore fails both the utility and cruelty tests. I believe that at best it would remain in the Bill as a fig leaf for the concept of registration.
	We are told that we should take a great deal of notice of the Burns report. We know that widespread evidence was taken on these issues. On page 106, it concluded:
	It is clear that the contribution made by mink hunts to the control of the mink population nationally is insignificant . . . Because mink hunts kill relatively small numbers of mink . . . and the hunting does not have any significant effect on the mink population at a national or regional level . . . the majority of mink found by hounds evade capture.
	On the other hand, at page 105 the Burns report concluded
	that trapping is recognised as the main method of controlling mink, and it is widely used by gamekeepers, water bailiffs, farmers and others.
	Trapping has been used to eradicate coypu and muskrat entirely. The Hebridean project has found 10 per cent. of mink to be trap shy. However, as the Minister said in Committee on 6 February,
	a range of measures to improve trap success could be applied, such as baits, attractants, lures, mirrors and trap design.[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 6 February 2003; c. 848.]
	The Burns inquiry concluded that research shows that intensive trapping in an area can remove most of the local population of mink.
	Hunting mink with packs of dogs is inefficient and so fails the utility test, but it is also damaging both to ground-nesting birds and to the otter populations that the pro-hunters say they are keen to protect. The wildlife trusts in their submission to the Burns inquiry said:
	Mink hunting may, in some cases, damage riverine habitat and disturb riverine species at particularly sensitive times of the year . . . Mink hunting may have a direct impact on otters both in terms of disturbance and in preventing otters from re-colonising and establishing in sensitive areas.
	They concluded:
	Mink hunting is not the most effective form of pest control.
	The Environment Agency said in its evidence that
	mink hunting with dogs was an ineffective method of control.
	It wishes to discourage mink hunting where otters and other wildlife may be disturbed, which effectively means along any river bank. Indeed, it could be argued that as the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 makes it illegal to disturb an otter or its holt, mink hunts are already illegal.
	Let us be under no illusionmink hunting with dogs is as cruel as the hunting of foxes, deer or hares with dogs. The mink hunting season runs from March to September and straddles the breeding season. Female mink are therefore hunted when pregnant or nursing their cubs. The dogs, often retrained foxhounds, are followed on foot, and the so-called sporting element derives from the contest between the huntsman, enabling his dogs to follow the scent left by the tiring quarry, and the frantic escape attempts of the mink.
	Donald Broom, a professor of animal welfare at Cambridge university, concluded in a scientific review of the literature on the welfare of hunted animals that as
	mink are able to learn simple tasks in laboratories, exhibit complex social organisation and live in established areas it can be assumed that hunting with hounds may cause considerable disruption of their normal behaviour patterns as well as fear and distress.

Gregory Barker: What scientific evidence does the hon. Gentleman have to support the theory that the killing of mink with dogs is crueller than killing them in any other way, such as wounding with a rifle?

Paul Holmes: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening carefully, he would know that I have already answered that in great detail. I have not talked about shooting mink at all but about humane trapping, and have cited extensive evidence submitted to the Burns inquiry and the clear-cut conclusion on three separate pages of the Burns report that trapping was far more humane and effective than hunting with dogs.
	The Burns inquiry was specifically told not to look into cruelty issues surrounding hunting or pass judgment on them. None the less, as with most of the hunted species that Burns looked at, the inquiry concluded that mink hunting with dogs
	seriously compromised the welfare of mink.

Nick Palmer: The hon. Gentleman is making a quietly persuasive speech, as he often does. I do not know whether he was in the Chamber when I asked the Minister about the impact of voting on the later stages of the Bill. However, now that the Minister has confirmed that if the vote on the banning of fox hunting is carried, part 2 will be dropped, does he agree that the argument for dropping mink hunting to smooth the passage of the Bill falls away? If we are going to have to tidy up the Bill anyway, we may as well take the unique opportunity to end the cruel sport of mink hunting.

Paul Holmes: I agree completely. I referred earlier to the fact that mink hunting may be left as a fig leaf for the registration process. However, given the assurance that we received earlierand I have been present throughout our debatethat defence, or fig leaf, is, as the hon. Gentleman says, no longer necessary.
	Mink escaped into the wild after their introduction to the UK for fur farming in 1928. However, the 20 mink hunts only appeared in the 1970s after otter hunting was outlawed in the face of the same vociferous opposition from hunters as we hear today. Mink hunting with packs of dogs is a sport, if such an activity can be so termed. However, as a means of controlling or eradicating mink, it fails the utility and cruelty tests. Many pro-hunters often accuse anti-hunters of having a strange anthropomorphic view of animalsthe fox, hare or deer are cuddly animals that should not be hunted or killed. Members who are going to vote for new clause 11, if they do not agree with that interpretation, should support clause 14, unless they are guilty of regarding practices that they believe to be cruel and lacking utility when applied to hunting hare, deer or foxes as acceptable if applied to the hunting of mink.

Gerry Steinberg: I support new clause 11 and will vote against Government new clause 13 with pleasure. Let me make it clear from the start that new clause 11 will not in any way wreck the Bill, as was reported in the newspapers over the weekend. In fact, as far as I am concerned, it will make the Bill acceptable, and it will keep the promise that I have made to my constituents since I became a Member of Parliament in 1987.
	I am bitterly disappointed with the Government's attitude towards hunting with dogs. If my memory serves me correctly, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) substantiated this, it has been a manifesto commitment since about 1987. The manipulation that we have witnessed today, whether it has come from the Whips Office or the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, has been a disgraceful attempt to stop us pressing new clause 11 to a Division. From the stories that I have heard, it seems that the Committee, too, was conned. This entire debate should have taken place in Committee and we should not be voting this evening on a clause to ban fox hunting. That should have been done in Committee.
	My disappointment began in 1997, when an overwhelming majority of the House voted for fox hunting to be banned411 voted for and 151 voted against a ban. What did the Labour Government do? With a long history of commitment to the issue and a magnificent majority to carry it out, they did nothing. The party leadership let the Bill fall.

Nick Palmer: Although I sympathise up to a point, does not my hon. Friend feel that he is being a little harsh? Tonight, for the first time, we have the opportunity and the realistic prospect of banning hunting for good. We have the Labour Government to thank for that. They have taken too long over it, but we have got there.

Gerry Steinberg: That is one way of looking at it. No, I do not think I am being too harsh. We have had an opportunity since 1997. We have had a majority of more than 100 in the House for the past six years, we made a commitment, and we have not carried it out. I am delighted with the situation tonight but no, I do not think I have been too harsh. I have raised the matter many a time with my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment. In fact, I have stopped buying him drinks because of his attitude towards it.

Howard Stoate: Given the overwhelming majority of hon. Members who have expressed a clear opinion on what they wanta total ban on such a cruel and barbaric sportwould it not have been better if the Bill had been constructed in Committee to allow that to happen with the minimum fuss and bother, so that we could all have got what we wanted with far less trouble than we have had this evening?

Gerry Steinberg: Absolutely right. That is the point that I was trying to make. If the Committee had done its job properlyI do not mean that disrespectfully towards the Committeeif it had not been brainwashed and bullied, we would not be in the situation that we are in tonight. The debate could have been over quickly and we could all have been home now.
	There have been several approaches since 1997, which have frustrated my constituents, me and the general public because of the lack of commitment by the Government to the promise that they made many years ago. The issue may be of low priority, but its political significance is very great. However, being an optimistic chap, I was delighted when I heard that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality, the newly promoted DEFRA Minister, was to introduce yet another hunting Bill. I was delighted and very confident, because he had served on the previous hunting Bill and had made a good defence of the abolition of hunting, so I was certain that he would find a way forward and resolve the issue cleanly and clearly.
	However, I was to be bitterly disappointed. In December 2002, DEFRA introduced a Bill that turned around the objectives of previous Bills on hunting with dogs and offered a ban on hunting, with provision for licensed and humane pest control. No one wanted to take away the rights of farmers to protect their stock. The Bill introduced for the first time proposals to license fox hunting. I was bemused. If I recollect correctly, the House clearly rejected a licensing system in 2001 when the then Home Secretary, now the Foreign Secretary, proposed his options Bill, which was defeated heavily in the House.
	9.15 pm
	I pay tribute to colleagues who served on the Committee, who attempted to reverse the objectives back to a focus on pest control. They succeeded to a degree, but we are left with a Bill that allows the licensing of the chasing of foxes and of mink.Many constituents cannot and will not understand how the House of Commons can justify introducing different welfare standards for different wild animals, especially as we have spent more than 120 hours debating the issue each time with the same result. Hunting serves no useful purpose, is cruel and should be banned.
	As we can see this evening, the Bill has come out of Committee pleasing no one. It is a typical liberal fudge, hoping to appease the fox hunters and those who support abolition. In essence, the Bill will do the opposite of what it intends. As we see this evening, it has alienated everyone in all parties. One cannot please everyone and be sincere, unless of course one is a Liberal when attempting to do that. I should not be nasty; some of them will be supporting us tonight.
	There is no middle way of licensing. A document posted to me recently from a Reverend Professor Linzey from Oxford universityI had never heard of him contained an interesting quote. He said:
	Licensing does not resolve the issue. It devolves it from Parliament (where the decision should be taken) to a three-member tribunal who will decide on a case-by-case basis. Moreover, licensing by definition authorises what was not authorised before. It therefore legitimises hunting, gives it authority and legal standing. Licensing is a step backwardsnot a step forwards.

Lembit �pik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gerry Steinberg: I will not. The hon. Gentleman has had a good say today. I want to get on because others want to get in.
	Licensing has done nothing to abolish fox hunting, which clearly the Bill set out to do. The Bill has banned hare coursing and hunting and deer hunting, but not fox hunting, which was the prime aim in the first place. Fox hunting was the core issue and it has been ignored. If it is wrong to hunt hare and deer, I cannot for the life of me understand why it is not wrong to hunt foxes and mink. It is not logical to me.
	A while ago I watched the Prime Minister promise on television to ban fox hunting. It is now all a matter of trust and those who put their trust in the Government to ban fox hunting must not be let down. Not to deliver would be a further nail in the coffin of this Government. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) used the word ratted. That will be an apt word if the Bill does not go through this evening with a total ban.
	The Government and the Prime Minister promised that the decision made by this House would be respected and accepted and that, if necessary, the Parliament Act would be used if the Bill failed to pass through the House of Lords. If this promise is not kept, we on this side of the House will suffer the consequences at the ballot box, and rightly so. The Government must not try to wriggle out of the commitment that they have given to pacify a loud but tiny minority.
	Many questions need to be asked. Why did the Bill not provide the fox with the same protection as deer and hare? Why could not the Bill have been drafted so as to give protection to these wild mammals while providing pest control measures? What evidence do we have that a ban with sensible measures would not be passed or supported by the Government? Why do we read or hear that any move to tighten the Bill might result in the Parliament Act not being used? I am delighted to say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton has wheedled out of the Government this evening that, regardless of how the Bill leaves the House this evening, it will qualify for the Parliament Act. That is a step forward.
	The Committee significantly strengthened the Bill, but it still allows the registrar to issue a licence for hunters to chase and kill mink and foxes. How can I go back to my constituents and party workers and state that hunting is banned, when we know that very soonif the Bill stays as the Committee left itwe will see television footage of the first successful applicant hunt going out in its normal way?
	That will not help build the trust that the Government are so keen to restore. If I were standing at the next election, I would be very anxious about the number of votes that I would lose on this issue. I, and many of my colleagues, have signed countless pledges and early-day motions, not to mention voting for a ban on at least three other occasions. No doubt many colleagues have also written letter after letter expressing support for and commitment to an outright ban on hunting with dogs.
	Indeed, I remind the House[Interruption.] I am coming to an end now. I have sat here for five hours, and now I am going to have my say. I remind the House of the Minister's speech in the Commons, before his return to the Government, in which he stated:
	It is entirely wrong to think that a licensing system, giving rise to all sorts of bureaucracy and complications, would resolve the problems relating to animal welfare and caused by animal cruelty.[Official Report, 27 February 2001; Vol. 363, c. 836.]
	That is why I support new clause 11, which was tabled by the majority of the Committee on the Hunting Bill and supported by more than 140 of my colleagues. I support both the Minister's statement then and the new clause now, and call on the Government to give Back Benchers of all parties, party workers and the general public what they want: a complete ban on hunting with dogs, to resolve this issue once and for all. Then we can start to build good relations with the general public once again.

Nicholas Soames: That was as depressing and ignorant a speech as I have heard in the past 20 yearsa turgid, ignorant recital of prejudice of the worst sort.
	I want to cover three points relating to new clause 13. First, I want to quote from a letter from Dr. Lewis Thomas, a vet, who is the secretary of a group of vets, numbering 520 members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. I hope that the Minister will listen to the quotation, considering his sham interest in animal welfare. The letter says:
	Be assured therefore that any legislation that bans or seriously restricts hunting the four quarry species cannot be regarded as having the welfare of wild animals as its primary objective. In fact, such legislation will cause unnecessary suffering, albeit largely unseen by a sensitive public, for which these legislators will be responsible.
	I hope that the House will remember that when we come to vote.
	Many of my colleagues and I, along with hundreds of thousands of people in this country, support hunting. I join the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) in paying tribute to the many women of all ages in Parliament square who have come to demonstrate and show their feelings under the banner of Families for Hunting, in some frightful weather, about the terrible thing that the House is about to do.
	I feel a terrible sense of betrayal. The six-month consultation undertaken by DEFRA, which was meant to be so fair and even-handed, with a Minister who was prepared to listen, has turned out to be nothing but a cynical sham and a fraud. Personally, I always believed that it would be so, and I said so at the time, but it was right to enter into it in a wholehearted way because of the assurances that we were given by the Minister. It has turned out to be a most disgraceful sham.
	The new clause merely consolidates the Committee stage bans on hare hunting and the use of dogs below ground, as well as the original ban on deer hunting. It seems extraordinary to impose a closed season on fox hunting from 1 August to the end of October, which is precisely the time when the hunts can do the maximum pest control. It is when the greatest amount of good is donewhen the cubs are dispersed more widely across the countryside, when the farmers can be assured that some of the cubs will be killed, and when the end result is a much better ordered and better balanced countryside.
	This restriction is wholly unjustified and absolutely unnecessary. It is quite contrary to anything in the Burns report, and it is clear that there is no apparent reason, other than political expediency, for the Minister to introduce such a measure. As I said, we are talking about a time when the Masters of Foxhounds Association's packs account for about 40 per cent. of its annual cull. This measure is blatantly discriminatory. Why is fox hunting banned during these months, and not other methods of control? All the major land management organisations in England and Wales recognise the need for fox control and support the status quo.
	One of the most shameful aspects of the lengthy deliberations in Committee was the Government's persistent refusal to accept, or to pay attention to, any of the amendments that were tabled in completely good faith. At a time when it is important to improve the agri-environmental systems in this country, it was particularly astonishing that all the proposals that were made on environmental grounds were dispatched as if they stood for naught. I hope that the Minister can assure me that the Government paid attention to the excellent independent study on field sports and conservation produced by the Durrell institute of conservation and ecology at the university of Kent. The study concludes:
	We found that landowners participating in field sports maintained the most established woodland and planted more new woodland and hedgerows than those who did not, despite the equal availability of subsidies. Therefore voluntary habitat management appears to be important for biodiversity conservation in Britain. Current debates on the future of field sports in Britain, and similar activities globally, may benefit from considering their utility as incentives to conserve additional habitat on private land.
	I should also like to say something about deer hunting. The response of the Exmoor national park authority has been mentioned. I want the Minister to understand[Interruption.] He does not understand, and neither does the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman laughs in a cavalier way, but he has not got a clue what he is going to do. He is going to be party to a cultural and ecological tragedy in the management of the red deer on Exmoor. I shall read to him again, so that he may be ashamed when he hears it, what the Exmoor national park authority had to say about the management of red deer:
	Exmoor National Park Authority is concerned that a ban on the hunting of deer with hounds would represent a very significant change in the management of the wild deer herd on Exmoor which, as the earlier sections of the evidence explain, might adversely affect the future sustainability of the herd, and by extension a much valued aspect of Exmoor's cultural heritage. It would also have a serious impact on the social and economic well being of its rural communities. In this way it could put the National Park Authority's own statutory purposes and duties at risk.

Elliot Morley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nicholas Soames: No, I will not. It seems extraordinary that the Government should wish to inflict this on Exmoor: that they should wish wilfully to destroy, in such an astonishingly prejudiced and ignorant manner, the extraordinarily intricate tapestry that binds a remote and remarkable part of the United Kingdom together.
	As was said earlier, it is a fact that conservation and hunting go very much hand in hand, and with that in mind I shall conclude by saying something about the use of terriers. We had an extremely important debate in Committee about the use of terriers by keepers. I understand and accept what the Minister said: that he intends to introduce an amendment in another placebecause he dare not do it in this House. But the fact of the matter is that if keepers are denied the use of terriers, in many areas of the uplands the environmental consequences will be very serious indeed.
	Few Government Membersone or two, but very fewcare at all about what exists in the uplands, but ground-nesting game and birds are extremely vulnerable to the attacks of foxes. If keepers are not allowed to use their terriers in the rightful pursuit of their employment to maintain a healthy and proper balance between the numbers of predators and ground-nesting game, there will be an ecological disaster in the uplands with extremely serious employment consequences. Nobody bothers to consider that, but it is every bit as important to those people as it is to the people on Exmoor who are going to see not only an important and much loved part of their cultural heritage and their life swept away by a piece of astonishingly foolish legislation, but an ecological disaster.
	All Conservative Members who set their hearts on producing a reasonable and fair result and on finding a sensible way forward feel betrayed by the wicked actions of an unprincipled Government.

Colin Pickthall: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) because, whatever one says, it is bound to sound reasonable by comparison.
	I shall be brief because there is little point in rehearsing the arguments for and against hunting in its various forms. The arguments that go on here seldom change anyone's mind. To pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey)that we were remiss in not going to talk to the ladies demonstrating over the roadshe should know that I, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) and many others represent large rural areas. Part of our professional life is therefore devoted to talking to the local people of those areas.
	I signed new clause 13 and came with the intention of speaking in favour of it and probably of abstaining on new clause 11. I believed that my right hon. Friend the Minister was absolutely correct to say that the difference between the Bill that went before the Committee and the amended Bill was very narrow; that we were on course to achieve 90 to 95 per cent. of what most Government Members wanted; and that new clause 13 and other relevant provisions would further strengthen the Bill.
	I served on the Standing Committee, which I believe did a brilliant job of strengthening the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) rather parodies the process in saying that we were conned, but I do not think that we were. I was not the only member of the Committee who believed that it was important for the whole House to pass the ban on hunting, in whatever form, with a majority of 200 plus, in preference to gaining a majority of 10 or so in Committee and passing the measure on to the House for simple ratification. The intervention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, though tough and outspoken, was not wholly necessary.
	What changed my mind was the straightforward clarification offered earlier in today's debate by my right hon. Friend and Mr. SpeakerI fully support what my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) said about thatthat the Bill, as amended, had time to go to the House of Lords during this Session, therefore achieving everything that we wanted.
	Previously, I admit, I was frightened that we were taking a terrible risk, that if the whole Bill were kicked into the long grass, the plug were pulled, or exercise of the Parliament Acts was deemed not to be suitable, we could lose a very good Bill, and that we would have enormous difficulties explaining that to our constituents, to whom we had promised action on the matter. I had no problem in explaining to people to whom I had promised that I would support a total ban, why the Alun Michael Bill, if I may refer to it like that, was a perfectly reasonable alternative, which avoided the risk of our losing the Bill. However, what we were told this afternoon made it clear that there was the possibility, the likelihood, the probability and, I hope, the certainty of us getting a total ban, and a relatively simple Bill in comparison to what we were discussing, through this House, through its recommittal, through into the House of Lords before the end of the Session. I have campaigned against hunting all my adult life, so I and all my colleagues on the Labour Benches could not but seize that opportunity.
	My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham described himself as an optimistic chap. If he is an optimistic chap, I am an Olympic athlete, but, like him, I am optimistic as from today about what can be achieved. I have supported my right hon. Friend the Minister and still support him through thick and thin on the Bill. He has done a magnificent job in very difficult circumstances. He should take note of the concerns that have been expressed mainly on the Labour Benches that new clause 13 and new clause 11 are in the wrong order. It has been improper for us to be faced with that particular alternative, however it came about. I plead with him to think about the possibility that new clause 13 should not be put to the vote, so that we can first have a serious, crucially important vote on new clause 11, because virtually every Labour Member, as well as a huge majority in the Labour party generally and people out there in the country are in favour of it.

David Cameron: I rise to speak against new clause 13. I put my cards on the table. I ride; I have been hunting; and I shoot. On occasions I have been asked to shoot foxes and I know what a hit and miss affair it can benot in my case, but I know that it can be.
	I was not a member of the Committee, but I believe that I do know something about which I am going to speak. Mr. Speaker, you asked us to be calm, but I find it very hard to be calm on this issue. I do not just disapprove of the Bill. I heartily dislike it. What I believe about this debateand we have heard a lot of it todayis that it is born out of prejudice and misunderstanding.
	Many hon. Members have talked about what has happened over the past five years. In many ways, it has been Back Benchers on both sides of the House who have put huge pressure on the Government to introduce a Bill against hunting because those Members so dislike the ritual, the chase, the redcoats. Then, those on the Front Bench are left with the difficult problem of how to ban the hunting of mammals by dogs. In some circumstances, and we have it in the Bill, if one is chasing rabbits, it is okay, but if one is chasing hares it is not. We go through all these twists and turns to prove it.
	We have had a fascinating debate today about terrier work. The Minister is telling us that it is all right for a gamekeeper to use terriers underground but it is not all right for a farmer to use terriers underground. How can that be justified? We have had months of tergiversation: the Minister moves one way, then another and no one can make sense of it. Here is our countryside Minister, who should be thinking about post office closures, the crisis in agriculture, broadband and a hundred other things, having to spend all his time thinking about how to try to ban hunting with dogs.
	The other reason why I find it hard to be calm is that I think about my constituents who are employed by the hunts. I think of Anthony Adams, the huntsman with the Heythrop who wrote to me to say that he had had 27 seasons of animal welfare. That is how he saw his job. He simply does not know what he will do when the hounds and the horses are gone. I give way to my neighbour.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my neighbour accept that the countryside Minister to whom he has referred has presided over 65,000 job losses in agriculture over the past four years? If the Bill goes through tonight and introduces a ban, 8,500 direct jobs will be lost and at least treble that number of indirect jobs.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Minister should come to the Heythrop hunt kennels in Chipping Norton to explain to those people why they will lose their jobs and homes. It is all for prejudice and misunderstanding.
	New clause 13 will make a bad Bill much worse. I say that because the Minister used to talk about his golden thread of cruelty and utility. That golden thread has completely gone, as the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) said. Where is the test for cruelty and utility with autumn hunting? It does not exist. Where is the test for cruelty and utility with hare hunting or deer hunting? The Government have thrown the golden thread out the window.
	I take a straightforward view: the fox population has to be controlled and hunting plays a role in that.

Lembit �pik: Despite what has been said, it is absolutely clear from the research that the middle way group has conductedanyone who looks at the facts can see this for themselves, and the research is not secretthat banning hunting with dogs increases the suffering. Hunting with dogs means zero per cent. wounding; shooting means a substantial wounding rate. If people think that they are improving the welfare of foxes in the countryside by voting for new clause 13 or new clause 11, they are wrong.

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I pay tribute to the middle way group for trying to introduce some science and thought into the process. The fact is that if we ban hunting, the number of foxes killed will not go down but will rise. The amount of suffering and cruelty will go up. I go back to Burns, who said that we have to consider the welfare effects of the alternatives. None of them is entirely comfortable. Snaring and shooting with shotguns can have serious welfare effects.
	People on both sides of the House decided to trust the Government in the Portcullis House process. I am afraid to say that that trust was entirely misplaced. I do not believe that the Government have acted in good faith. New clause 13 is the latest proof of that. Why should there be a ban on all autumn hunting? Why not test it against the principles of cruelty and utility? If the Minister went autumn hunting, he would see that it is the time of greatest utility, when 40 per cent. of foxes are dispatched. It is not a time at which hunts go chasing across the field; it is the time when the hounds do the maximum amount of dealing with foxes, and a great many are dispatched. Closed seasons should be about species, not activities. If the Minister is so concerned, where is the cruelty test in the autumn for shooting or snaring? It is not there. There is no balance or logic in the Bill.
	Why is there an outright ban on hare hunting and deer hunting? The Minister said that those would not pass the cruelty or utility tests. How can he know that? If he is setting up a tribunal, why not let it decide? The Government said, and the hon. Member for Vauxhall mentioned it, that they were looking for principle and evidence. I say that they have blown those things apart. Clause 10 of the Bill, to which new clause 13 is linked, says that hunting must pass a test of causing
	significantly less pain, suffering or distress to the wild mammals
	than any alternative. Why must it be significantly? Why not have an even test between the different methods of dispatching a fox? That underlines the hypocrisy in what Labour Members are saying: they are prepared for foxes to suffer more, even if hunting involves less suffering.

Rob Marris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Cameron: I will not. I have little time in which to make my final points.
	More foxes will probably be killed. There can be no guarantee about animal welfare. The National Farmers Union is very clear about that. It wrote to every hon. Member, and I quote from its letter:
	We believe that the greater reliance on shooting that would follow a de facto ban on most hunting would increase animal suffering and have adverse effects on public safety in the countryside.
	That is an absolutely clear statement from people who know what they are talking about.
	Hunting is part of the balance of the countryside, which is why banning it would mean more foxes being killed. Hunting foxes is not about eradicating the fox population but about controlling it. One of my Oxfordshire neighbours keeps chickens. He was fed up with foxes taking them so he started shooting foxes. A conversationquite a lively oneensued between him and the secretary of the local hunt, after which my neighbour told me: I understand the nature of the bargain; the hunt is saying that if it controls the number of foxes and I stop shooting them, we shall have a healthy fox population but livestock will be maintained. It is that point most of all to which I wish that hon. Members who are anti-hunting would listen. It is not about eradicating the fox population but about controlling it. Once hunting has been banned, or nearly banned under new clause 13, it will lead to the eradication of the fox population, because foxes will be shot in ever-larger numbers.
	When we consider what the Bill has become, with no golden thread of cruelty and utility running through it, we have to ask: why are we registering only fox hunting? Why not register rat catching? If one wants to dispatch a rat, one can shoot it, one can use a terrier or a ferret. There is no control, yet under the Bill we have to have registered regulation of fox hunting.
	A huntsman from my local hunt asked me whether, if he had worn a Rentokil jacket instead of a red jacketor in the case of the Heythrop hunt, a green jacketpeople might not have minded him hunting. I had to reply that that was possible. Tonight, the Government are doing what I thought would be impossible; they are making a bad Bill worse. I hope that my hon. Friends will join me in the Lobby and vote it down.

Alun Michael: Earlier in the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) accused me of trying to be objective on a matter where people do not want objectivity. He is right. I have tried to be objective throughout the period for which I have been responsible for this area of policy. I have tried to be objective but to remain passionate about banning cruelty and eradicating the cruelty associated with hunting. I have tried to be clinical and effective in getting a good piece of legislation that can be properly enforced and which would be successful. That is what I have tried to do and my hon. Friend was kind enough to acknowledge that.
	However, my hon. Friend and others expressed concern that there was an impression that new clause 13 would stand in the way of a vote on new clause 11, and that it was some sort of clever wheeze. I have assured him that that is not the case. In the light of what has been said, I have spoken to my hon. Friend and to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), because new clause 13 contains the fulfilment of an undertaking that I gave Members in Committee, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester. It is with his understanding, therefore, that, to make it clear that there is no clever wheezeYou see what you're offered; you see what you getit is not my intention to put new clause 13 to a vote[Hon. Members: Hear, hear.] That means that new clause 11 can be voted on; I believe that new clause 6 may come first, but I would say

Lembit �pik: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the Minister is not moving new clause 13, will it be in order for us to request a separate vote on new clause 6, as the Minister indicated?

Mr. Speaker: That will be perfectly in order.

Edward Garnier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know what deals go on between Labour Members of Parliament, but the central thrust of the Minister's case to the House and, therefore, to the public was that he was determined that new clause 13 should be put to the vote. It now appears that he has done some back-street deal with the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), so is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to advance a case on one basis and then to appear at 10 minutes to 10 to present another one?

Mr. Speaker: I do not want to get drawn into the argument, but sometimes Members, including Ministers, listen to the debate.

Alun Michael: I have listened to the debate, and in the spirit in which we have debated such things I wish to urge colleagues not to pass new clause 11. I understand entirely the temptation to do so and the attraction for many of my colleagues, but I tell them that the Bill, without new clause 11, will be powerful legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham acknowledged that in his speech, and animal welfare organisations have acknowledged the extent to which the Bill will eradicate cruelty.
	Opposition Members have not helped in the debate because they have not really contributed to it; they have merely rerun the arguments made in Committee about why they do not want any eradication of cruelty. I urge my colleagues to unite today in getting good, strong legislation through the House. I hope that we can do so in the form in which I have introduced the Bill, with the amendments that fulfil the promises that I made in Committee. If that is not the case, of course, there will be recommittal to ensure that whatever Bill goes forward to the House of Lords does so in an effective manner that carries through the intentions of the House.
	I understand how passionately my colleagues feel about this issue, as do those on the opposite side of the argument, but I ask everyone to respect the fact that we have designed a Bill that is intended to be good law, to be enforceable and to eradicate all the cruelty associated with hunting with dogs, and I invite my colleagues to join me in the way that I shall vote in the Divisions.
	I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion, and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6
	  
	Use of Dogs Below Ground (No. 2)

'(1) Registration under Part 2 may be effected in respect of hunting that involves the use of a dog below ground.
	(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the recognition of any existing body as the proper authority for making a code in respect of the conduct of any activity in connection with the use of dogs below ground on wild mammals.'.[Lembit pik.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.
	Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 373.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 11
	  
	Foxes

'Registration under Part 2 shall not be effected in respect of the hunting of foxes.'.[Mr. Banks.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.
	Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	The House divided: Ayes 362, Noes 154.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause 14
	  
	Registration in Respect of Hunting of Mink

'Registration under Part 2 shall not be effected in respect of the hunting of mink.'.[Paul Holmes.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.
	Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	The House divided: Ayes 341, Noes 160.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 1
	  
	Exempt Hunting

Amendments made: No. 88, in page 22, line 21, leave out 'or'.
	No. 89, in page 22, line 22, at end insert
	', or
	(c) participation in a field trial.
	(2A) In subsection (2)(c) field trial means a competition (other than a hare coursing event within the meaning of section 8) in which dogs
	(a) flush animals out of cover or retrieve animals that have been shot (or both), and
	(b) are assessed as to their likely usefulness in connection with shooting.'.
	No. 90, in page 24, line 11, leave out 'diseased or'.
	No. 91, in page 24, line 13, leave out 'or treating its disease.'.
	No. 92, in page 24, line 13, at end insert
	'( ) The third condition is that the hunting does not involve the use of more than two dogs.'.
	No. 93, in page 24, line 14, leave out 'third' and insert 'fourth'.
	No. 94, in page 24, line 16, leave out 'fourth' and insert 'fifth'.
	No. 95, in page 24, line 22, leave out 'fifth' and insert 'sixth'.
	No. 96, in page 24, line 25, leave out
	'or to treat its disease'.
	No. 97, in page 24, line 29, leave out 'sixth' and insert 'seventh'.
	No. 98, in page 24, line 30, at end insert
	Research and observation
	8 (1) The hunting of a wild mammal is exempt if the conditions in this paragraph are satisfied.
	(2) The first condition is that the hunting is undertaken for the purpose of or in connection with the observation or study of the wild mammal.
	(3) The second condition is that the hunting does not involve the use of more than two dogs.
	(4) The third condition is that the hunting does not involve the use of a dog below ground.
	(5) The fourth condition is that the hunting takes place on land
	(a) which belongs to the hunter, or
	(b) which he has been given permission to use for the purpose by the occupier or, in the case of unoccupied land, by a person to whom it belongs.
	(6) The fifth condition is that each dog used in the hunt is kept under sufficiently close control to ensure that it does not injure the wild mammal.'.[Alun Michael.]
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to order [this day],
	That the Hunting Bill be re-committed to the Standing Committee to which it previously stood committed for the purpose of making such amendments as the Committee consider to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the addition to the Bill of new clause 11 on consideration.[Alun Michael.]
	Question agreed to.

SCHOOLS (WATFORD)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Margaret Moran.]

Claire Ward: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should not walk in front of the hon. Lady when she is addressing the House.
	I see that the Minister is just arriving. I expect better from a Minister.

Claire Ward: In 1997, and again in 2001, I was elected to represent Watford on a manifesto commitment to improve the educational opportunities of the children in the constituencya commitment made famous by the Prime Minister's reference to the Government's three priorities: Education, education, education.
	Tonight, I want to draw the attention of the Government and the House to a proposal that could do much to unravel the progress made to date, damaging the education of some of the children in Watford. The proposal does not come from the Government, and I accept that they have no direct responsibility, but I am looking to the Minister to give reassurances that he understands the parents' concerns and will exert all the pressure that he can on Hertfordshire county council to think again.
	On the Friday before the Whitsun half-term, my office received a call from a worried parent saying that he had just heard that the county council had proposed that Leavesden Green school be closed in July 2004. That was the first that I had heard of the proposal. I called the head teacher, who confirmed the news. The Conservative-controlled council is proposing to close the school at the end of July 2004 and to merge Alban Wood infants and Alban Wood junior on one site, to form a junior middle infants. I was told that Mrs. Pocock, the head teacher of Leavesden Green, had been informed only a couple of days before. She had rightly decided to let the parents know of the proposals immediately, rather than waiting for them to leak out, as they inevitably would.
	I rang the county council to seek confirmation and question why I, as the Member of Parliament, had not been informed of the proposals in advance. It confirmed that it would be just the first phase of a review of surplus places in the north Watford area, and admitted that it should have let me know in advance.
	The proposals came as a complete shock to the community, staff and parents. There had been no indication that the council was seeking to review surplus places or introduce such devastating proposals. Head teachers had simply been informed of its intention to close and merge schools, with no initial discussion of what might be the strategy for the process.
	I am appalled by the way in which the matter has been handled to date, and I would be grateful if the Minister would look at the process and consider whether this is appropriate, in comparison with the way in which other authorities would handle such a sensitive matter and the consultation.
	The proposals are now out for consultation, and the council has given assurances that it will listen to the views expressed. I hope that it will, because there is no support at all from the community, parents or staff for the closure of Leavesden Green, a school that recently received a Government achievement award in recognition of the progress that it has made. It has done well in its standard assessment tests and recently qualified for Investors in People, and it is in the process of seeking the healthy schools award and the Hertfordshire quality standard for the foundation stagecertainly not a school that should be the subject of possible closure.
	The school is not in deficit, and at a time of falling rolls in many schools, not only in Watford, the intake is increasing. Between January and June this year, there was a 14.6 per cent. rise in the number of pupils admitted. It is a successful school, where children benefit from a good site, with access to excellent green playing fields.
	Hertfordshire county council has stated that it is reviewing primary schools in the area because of a large number of unused places. I recognise that it is the duty of an education authority to keep a watchful eye on the number of surplus places in the area, but I believe that the council is seriously flawed in its proposals and in its reasons for them in this case.
	The county council has previously stated that Leavesden Green school has a capacity of 420 pupils. That was based on a standard two-form intake of 60 pupils and 14 class bases, but these figures are not the reality. The school does not have 14 class bases, so in practice it cannot accommodate 420 pupils. It does not have 14 class bases for the very simple reason that the county council encouraged it to make provision for a privately run day care nursery that occupies three class bases. Tots nursery provides an important service to the community and has been resident at the school for nearly 10 years. During that time, the county council has not sought to change the nominal pupil intake to reflect that fact.
	Furthermore, in 1996 the school was granted a 26-place mornings-only nursery. That effectively removed a further classroom base, and therefore reduced the capacity of the school to 300 places, plus a 26-place nursery. So from that point the school had, on paper, a 420-pupil capacity, but in practice it had only 10 class bases and, therefore, a 300-place intake capacity, plus 26 nursery places. The school asked the county council whether it would be appropriate, given those circumstances, to change the standard number to create a one-form entry school, but it was advised that that was not necessary, as it would be allowed the flexibility to take higher numbers if it needed to do so.
	Reduced actual capacity has therefore been both encouraged and facilitated by the county council in the past 10 years. Capacity was further diminished when the council gave the school the authority to use one of its remaining classroom bases to create a computer suitea resource that the Minister will doubtless agree is important in any school, these days. So the final capacity is now 270 places in nine class bases, with a 26-place nursery. Yet the county council continues to quote capacity figures of 261, 360 and 420. The first two of those figures appear in the consultation document. That is confusing for anybody, but what is clear is that the figures make no sense at all.
	The county council has set out a number of reasons why it believes that these changes are necessary to meet its vision for primary schools in Watford. It states that it expects to achieve a pattern of schools that will meet a number of criteria, the first of which is to reflect parental preference for schools. That is a laudable aim, but certainly not one that the council appears to be taking very seriously. Parents have chosen to send their children to Leavesden Green school. Indeed, 100 per cent. of nursery entrants for 200304 listed the school as their first choice, as did 80 per cent. of reception entrants for the same period. That is a clear indication that parents want their children to go to this school.
	The council says that it is seeking to produce schools with normally not fewer than two forms of entrywith an intake, therefore, of 60 pupils. Yet there are a number of schools in Watford and throughout the county in which single-form intake is deemed acceptable. If it is acceptable for other schools, why should it not be so for Leavesden Green?
	Of course, any education authority will wish to ensure that the number of places in schools reflects current demand and possible future growth, including any possible housing developments. The area that Leavesden Green serves is undergoing much change. A new housing estate, known as Huntonbury Village, is being completed and will provide 314 family homes. Indeed, the school already takes some pupils from this area. Other new housing developments, most of which will consist of family homes, have been recently completed or are in the process of being completed. Other sites in the area are already being identified for planning permission. If the school were to close, the land would be sold for housing development, creating even more family homes with even more potential pupilsa point that I shall return to later.
	Rather than assuming that the number of potential pupils is declining, it seems more logical to assume that many surplus places in the area will be taken up in due course over the next few years. The county council argues that, as the birth rate is declining, there will still be surplus places. That may well be the case on a national basis, but there is no evidence to suggest that it is the case in this particular area of Watford, which is certainly not suffering a reduction in the number of children. On the contrary, the number of children aged between 0 and 14 years in Watford borough increased between 1991 and 2001 by 1,234. There was also an increase of 1,647 in the neighbouring district of Three Rivers, parts of which are in my constituency.
	It would seem that my constituents are a rather more fertile group than the national population. The electoral ward directly served by the school there has seen an additional 21 babies born in the last two years. The county council might say that there has been a reduction in the birth rate nationally, but it does not apply to the specific area for which the closure of a specific school is proposed. Surely the Minister would agree that the education authority must take into account the local circumstances and the potential for increased demand rather than looking simply at a flawed calculation of surplus places.
	Leavesden Green benefits greatly from its large playing fields, especially in view of the built-up urban environment surrounding it. Children from the local estates do not have much access to green fields, but at Leavesden school they have a significant sporting area. The Department for Education and Skills, in co-operation with colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, has emphasised over recent years the Government's commitment to sporting facilities and to the reduction in the sale of school playing fields. I congratulate the Government on their success in limiting the number of sales of playing fields, but here we have exactly the sort of school that also needs protection from the plans of the local authority.
	This part of my constituency is a built-up environment, so people already suffer the effects of traffic congestion and pollution in the environment, but the location of the school means that many can and do walk to school. If Leavesden Green were to close, the nearest schools for pupils would involve either crossing a major dual carriageway or, should the merger proposal succeed, settling into a new school at Alban Wood. Neither option is satisfactory for parents or pupils. Nor does it meet the county council's stated aim of getting more people to walk to school. Most important of all, it fails to reflect the preferences of parents for having their children taught at a local schoolLeavesden Green.
	The second part of the consultation proposes a merger of Alban Wood infant and junior schools. This morning, I went to meet parents at the infant school to see at first hand the circumstances that would result if the county were successful in its proposals. Those parents were very annoyed that the proposals had been sprung on them without any notice that it was an issue in the area. Rightly, they feel that it is inappropriate to consult on the closure of Leavesden Green school at the same time as proposing a merger of Alban Wood schools. The closure of Leavesden Green school would inevitably impact on Alban Wood schools, which would need to take some or all of the children. The rights of parents and staff to discuss the future of their schools should not be determined solely by the success or failure of the campaign to keep Leavesden Green school open.
	Even accepting that the consultationflawed as it is in so many waysshould proceed for the next few weeks, there are many objections to the proposals for a merger of the two schools. First, it is proposed that the schools should be merged on to the infant school site. It is significantly the smaller site of the two and does not have appropriate playing field areas for the children. It is located on a busy road with only one main entrance to the school. The prospect of having hundreds more children entering the school through the one access point will increase significantly the risk to children.
	Furthermore, the county council has suggested that it would keep the playing fields of the junior school across the road for use by the proposed new school. That means that teachers would have to take young children across a busy road just to use a playing field. That would not be practical on a day-to-day basis for lunchtime play or PE, as it would increase the risk to the children. It is also totally unnecessary. It would be more appropriate if a merger were to take place to locate a new school on the larger of the two sitesthat of the junior school.
	Parents have expressed concern that, given the timetable and the fact that parents of pupils at all three schools will oppose the proposals, it is unlikely that any decision to proceed, if pushed through by the Conservative-controlled county council, would deliver new classrooms to Alban Wood in time for the September 2004 intake. Children would therefore be taught in portable classrooms and in a disrupted environment. That is completely unacceptable if children are to be given a good education in the best environment.
	In considering every reason that the county council has put forward in the consultation document for closing Leavesden Green school, I can see no genuine educational reason for the proposals. If the county council were interested in the school, it would be proposing not its closure but simply that it change to a one-form intake school. That would leave a small number of surplus places but, with the expected housing developments and the indication of birth rates in the area, those will be taken up over the next few years.
	If the reasons for those proposals are not educational, there must be another reason. I believe that the Conservative-controlled county council is seeking to close and merge schools so that it can free up the land to sell it off to developers for more housing. The council has a target to meet of providing more than 80,000 homes over the next 20 years. I know from my advice surgeries and from casework that we need more accommodation, especially affordable homes for families and those on lower or average earnings in both the public and private sectors, yet the county council has fought the proposal that an additional 5,000 homes and possibly more should be built on a greenfield site in the west of Stevenage off the A1, despite the fact that the Government have given approval for such development.
	The county council does not want to touch the green fields in the leafy parts of Hertfordshire. Instead, it wants to build on every part of green land and possible site within an already crowded urban environment in my constituency. By building even more homes on existing school sites, it would diminish the quality of life of my constituents, who would not have such ready access to green fields and play areas.
	That is completely unacceptable and I know that I have the full support of parents and staff affected by those proposals in saying that we will fight them every step of the way. My constituents are entitled to real vision from the county council, not a back-door scheme to build more houses. They are entitled to a decent education for their children in a good school with proper play facilities. They are entitled to have a school at a reasonable walking distance from their home, should they choose to send their children to it. They are entitled to have their preferences for the education of their children given serious consideration. They are entitled to expect that their communities will be balanced by housing and access to green and open spaces. They are also entitled to have a county council that listens to their concerns.
	I want those schools to be accessible to the whole community. If there is surplus classroom capacity in some parts of the area, I expect the council to explore options for greater community use, such as already exists in the use of three classrooms by Tots nursery at Leavesden Green. I hope that the Minister will confirm that it is the Government's desire to see schools opened up more to community use, and not simply providing an education service during school hours. That really would be a vision.
	The Tories at county hall have got it wrong. They should go back to the drawing board, scrap the current proposals and change Leavesden Green to a one-form entry school. They could then legitimately consult parents at the Alban Wood schools about a merger and where a new school could be sited. If they do not listen, we will not go away. We shall fight the proposals at every stage, and the campaign has already gained significant support throughout the wider community as parents across Watford recognise that if the county council gets away with it this time, it will rampage through the rest of the town, closing and merging schools.
	I hope that my hon. Friend has heard tonight the real concerns of parents and the community and will seek to help wherever he can to make those who have the power to decide change their minds.

David Miliband: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Claire Ward) on her passionate speech and on the compelling vision that she set out of a primary education system that caters for all children and offers them an education that is broad and balanced in every way. I shall try to address some of her key points. Thanks to her intensive lobbying, I am aware of the interest that people in Watford are showing in the review of primary school provision. Thanks to her efforts, I am aware of the concerns that exist. I do not want to make her blush, but she has been an outstanding tribune for the cause of primary education in her constituency, always reminding me of the excellent work being done in Watford schools as well as the issues that are raised in the current consultation. She is absolutely right to say that nothing that any of us does at any level of government should put at risk the outstanding progress made in Watford schools over the last few years.
	I understand that Hertfordshire county council is reviewing primary schools in north-east Watford and, as the first phase, is putting forward proposals for the possible closure of Leavesden Green and the possible amalgamation of Alban Wood nursery and Alban Wood juniors. I understand that the council aims to be able to make judgments on the way ahead later this year, and I shall address the process for that later.
	Before I turn to the specifics of how we go about school organisation, I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in paying tribute to the outstanding progress made in Watford primary schools over the past few years. The figures are striking. In English, 76 per cent. of 11-year-olds now achieve level 4. In maths, the percentage has increased from 64 per cent. to 80 per cent., and in science it has gone up from 69 per cent. to 86 per cent. That is testimony to the hard work of teachers and head teachers in Watford, and to the hard work of pupils and parents.
	Labour's election manifesto in 1997 said that we should put primaries first, and what has happened in Watford is a good example of that. Nationally, the percentage of pupils achieving below 65 per cent. has been roughly halved since 1998. Everything we do, from teaching the curriculum to school organisation, must be designed to sustain and develop that record of success. Whether nationally or locally, we need to support the agenda set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the document Excellence and EnjoymentA Strategy for Primary Schools. It shows how primary schools can deliver the broad and balanced education to which we aspire. I hope that the agenda described by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford, which I support, will be shared by all parties, so that children in all parts of the country get the opportunities they deserve.
	On school organisation, the Government wish to encourage local school provision that boosts standards and opportunities for young people, matching school place supply as closely as possible to pupil and parent needs and wishes. The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 places a duty on each local education authority to ensure that sufficient school places exist to meet the needs of the local population in order to promote high standards of attainment. It is for LEAs, not Ministers, to decide on the organisation of provision. If an authority decides to reorganise provision, decisions will be taken not in Whitehall, but locally. It may help if I set out in some detail the procedure that needs to be followed.
	I understand that my hon. Friend's LEA is currently consulting all interested parties on the proposals. It should then use any views received during consultation to inform the decision as to whether to proceed. If the authority decides to proceed with reorganisation of provision, statutory notices must be published in a newspaper, posted at the gates of the schools affected and placed in other prominent places locally. There is then a six-week period for objections and comments. The notice and other supporting documentation must be sent to the local school organisation committee.
	If no objections are received, the authority may proceed and implement its proposals. If objections are receivedmy hon. Friend's campaign is relevant herethey are referred to the school organisation committee, which is made up of five or six groups representing major stakeholders in the provision of education. Each group has one vote and must consider all evidence in line with guidance issued by the Secretary of State before reaching a decision. If a unanimous decision cannot be reached the case is referred not to me, but to the independent schools adjudicator for a final decision.
	We recently issued new guidance for those publishing and deciding proposals for changes to local school organisation. It makes it clear that the Secretary of State wants to see LEAs organise provision so that places are where parents want them. We are clear that the removal of surplus places must always support the core agenda of raising standards and trying to match places with parental choice. The LEA will need to bear that in mind when deciding how to proceed, as will the school organisation committee in reaching a decision if proposals eventually go before it.
	My hon. Friend raised the important point that reducing surplus places will not always mean closure. It can be achieved, for example, by removing temporary accommodation, by consolidating split-site schools or adapting accommodation for alternative use by the community, such as by playgroups, an issue raised by my hon. Friend in relation to the extended schools programme at Leavesden Green. We all hope that every school has extended provision, before 9 o'clock in the morning and after 3.30 in the afternoon, but obviously there are special circumstances when the capital investment in a school site can offer a much wider range of provisions. That may be relevant locally.
	It is vital for the whole school community to be involved at every stage of that difficult process. It is incumbent on LEAs to bring schools, heads, parents and, indeed, MPs, with them. I was obviously concerned by what my hon. Friend said this evening. There is good practice around the country and although the decisions are always difficult, we urge local government to follow that good practice, as that is the way to build local consensus for the changes.
	My hon. Friend referred to national practice. It is very much a matter for individual authorities to decide whether, and how, to reduce surplus places. The Department monitors the position closely if significant numbers of schools in an area have surplus places, especially where there is also evidence that the schools concerned are performing poorly. We have looked closely into the position in LEAs where levels appear to be excessively high; that is, where 20 per cent. of primary or secondary schools in an area have a quarter or more surplus places and where we think that further work may need to be done locally to develop strategies to deal with that.
	At the last review of surplus places undertaken by the department, in 2001, the overall level of surplus in Hertfordshire was not considered a cause of concern; about 10 per cent. of primary schools and 15 per cent. of secondary schools had more than a quarter of empty places. We are currently collecting surplus place data for 2003 from LEAs. The survey will be completed by August and the results will be available in the autumn. That may be of interest to my hon. Friend.
	In short, the Government have put a framework in place to discuss these difficult local decisions. We have launched a primary strategy that sets out our plans for the future of primary education. We have established a framework for local decision making on school organisation, which places decision making in the community the school serves and knows. We have taken robust action to drive up standards in all schools and we have greatly increased the capital available for investment in school buildings.
	We have a constitutional settlement, which gives a vital role in school organisation not to me but to local education authorities. It has done so since 1944. There are limits to my role and to that of the LEAs. I hope that we all agree that while local matters always require local governance they also require a local and a national commitment to the standards of education provided for young people. That is our commitment and I hope very much that my hon. Friend will continue to share the passion and vision for education that she has shown tonight.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Eleven o'clock.